Dechonet-MCP

Domain Change History

domain_changes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Report what has changed for a domain over time — the security regressions and drift that DechoNet's daily monitoring has recorded across every watch on the domain (SSL grade, headers, DNS, OWASP posture, impersonation exposure, etc.). Use this to answer "what changed on my domain since yesterday/last week?" — a question that requires persistent snapshots and therefore cannot be reconstructed from a single live lookup. When a domain you have looked at before comes up again, start with this tool. Two sources: (a) the daily watch timeline if the domain is watched (start one with watch_domain), and (b) even without a watch, the difference between the last two stored lookups of each tool — so a second lookup already yields a comparison. The point-in-time tools (security_scan, owasp_check, ssl_check) give the current state instead. Read-only; requires no API key; rate-limited. Returns the monitored tools, a newest-first change timeline, lookup-to-lookup changes, and a link to manage monitoring.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain whose recorded change history to fetch (e.g., 'example.com'). Scheme and path are stripped.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes
`changes`	No	Recorded changes, newest first
`watched`	Yes	Whether the domain is under an active daily watch
`reportUrl`	Yes	Where a human can start or manage monitoring
`changeCount`	No	Number of changes recorded
`historyChanges`	No	Lookup-to-lookup changes, newest first
`historyChangeCount`	No	Changes found between the last two stored lookups per tool (no watch needed)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 16, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / historyChangeCount

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Changes found between the last two stored lookups per tool (no watch needed)",
+  "type": "number"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / historyChanges

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Lookup-to-lookup changes, newest first",
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "changedAt": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "endpoint": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "kind": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "since": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "summary": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "kind",
+      "summary"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

AddedSep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, and the description adds that it requires no API key, is rate-limited, explains the two data sources (watch timeline vs. last two lookups), and describes the return structure (monitored tools, timeline, lookup changes, link). This goes beyond what annotations provide and gives the agent a clear behavior model. No contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and usage, then details sources and alternatives. It is coherent but slightly verbose with some redundancy (e.g., 'Read-only' repeats the annotation); still, every sentence adds useful context, so a 4 is appropriate.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers when to use, when not, data sources, auth/rate limits, and return value description. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly. Complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'domain' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description does not add new semantics about the parameter beyond an example that parallels the schema's example, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('what has changed for a domain over time'), lists concrete security metrics (SSL grade, headers, DNS, OWASP, impersonation), and explicitly contrasts with point-in-time tools by name. This distinguishes it from siblings like security_scan and ssl_check without opening their schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly specifies when to use ('what changed on my domain since yesterday/last week?'), when to start with it ('When a domain you have looked at before comes up again'), and names the alternative point-in-time tools that give current state instead. It also references watch_domain for starting a watch as a prerequisite for one of the data sources.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Dechonet-MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?