Dechonet-MCP

Go-Live Readiness Checklist

golive_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a domain is ready to launch or migrate — a go/no-go verdict over five essentials: DNS resolves to an IP, has propagated consistently across global resolvers, SSL/TLS is ready, the site is reachable over HTTPS, and the domain registration is not about to expire. Use this right before flipping DNS to a new server, or to confirm a migration has landed. It answers "can I switch over yet?"; use security_scan for a security posture grade or the individual tools for depth. Any failing essential yields not_ready; only cautions yields caution; all clear yields ready. Read-only (a passive multi-probe, though it does resolve and fetch the domain); requires no API key; rate-limited. Returns the verdict, per-check statuses, and a shareable report link.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain to check for launch/migration readiness (e.g., 'example.com'). Scheme and path are stripped.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`checks`	No
`verdict`	Yes	'ready' \| 'caution' \| 'not_ready'
`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.
`failCount`	No
`passCount`	No
`reportUrl`	Yes	Human-facing interactive report on dechonet.com
`warnCount`	No

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"
+}

AddedSep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that it is a passive multi-probe that nonetheless resolves and fetches the domain, that no API key is required, that it is rate-limited, and the verdict decision logic (any failing essential -> not_ready, only cautions -> caution, all clear -> ready). This is rich behavioral context the annotations alone would not convey.

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?

Well front-loaded with the core verdict statement first, then scope, usage, decision logic, and constraints. It is dense and slightly long, and the closing sentence partly duplicates the existing output schema, but no sentence is filler.

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?

Given a rich output schema and full annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, when to use, alternatives, side-effect/rate-limit context, and verdict semantics. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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, and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it ('scheme and path are stripped' is already in the schema). Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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+resource and enumerates the five essentials it checks (DNS resolution, propagation, SSL/TLS, HTTPS reachability, registration expiry), giving a precise scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming security_scan and 'the individual tools' as different concerns.

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 says when to use it ('right before flipping DNS to a new server, or to confirm a migration has landed') and answers the selecting question ('can I switch over yet?'). It names the alternatives (security_scan for posture, individual tools for depth), so routing is unambiguous.

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?