Dechonet-MCP

Infrastructure History

domain_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Show how a domain's (or IPv4 address's) infrastructure has changed over time from DechoNet's stored observations: nameservers, A/AAAA, MX, CNAME, certificate issuer, registrar, RDAP nameservers and status, and for an IP its ASN and PTR — each value with when it was first and last seen. Use this when the question is about the past ("when did the nameservers change?", "which IPs has it used?"); use dns_lookup or rdap_lookup for the current state. Coverage: only what DechoNet itself observed (lookups, watches, own discovery, and a daily re-resolution of the Korean-brand and phishing names it tracks) — not full passive DNS. Read-only; requires no API key; rate-limited. Returns per-kind value timelines and a coverage note.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	Yes	Domain (e.g., 'example.com') or IPv4 address. Scheme, path and a leading www. are stripped.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No
`kinds`	Yes
`target`	Yes
`observed`	Yes
`receipts`	No	Signed observation receipts behind this result, one per lookup: when, from where and under which rules version DechoNet observed it. Each url shows the record and checks its Ed25519 signature.
`reportUrl`	Yes	Human-facing page on dechonet.com for this target

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / receipts

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Signed observation receipts behind this result, one per lookup: when, from where and under which rules version DechoNet observed it. Each url shows the record and checks its Ed25519 signature.",
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "id": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "tool": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "url": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "tool",
+      "id",
+      "url"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 14, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / reportUrl

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Human-facing page on dechonet.com for this target",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "target",
-  "observed",
-  "kinds"
-]New value: +[
+  "target",
+  "observed",
+  "kinds",
+  "reportUrl"
+]

AddedOct 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/open-world, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: no API key required, rate-limited, and a precise coverage scope ('only what DechoNet itself observed ... not full passive DNS') that would otherwise cause an agent to over-trust sparse results. It also discloses the return shape (per-kind value timelines plus a coverage note).

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the past-vs-present routing before the coverage caveats, and every sentence carries information. The opening sentence is somewhat run-on with its long record-kind list, which slightly hurts scanability but does not waste space.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, yet it still notes the per-kind timelines and coverage note. For a single-parameter read-only history tool, all the context an agent needs (scope, limits, alternatives) is present.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the domain-or-IPv4 and www-stripping behavior. The description only restates the domain/IPv4 duality, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show how a domain's ... infrastructure has changed over time') and enumerates the exact record kinds covered, including a parenthetical for IP targets. It also distinguishes itself from dns_lookup and rdap_lookup, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 frames the selection criterion ('Use this when the question is about the past') with concrete example questions, and names the alternatives to use for the current state (dns_lookup, rdap_lookup). This is exactly the when/when-not routing an agent needs.

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?