Dechonet-MCP

Infrastructure Pivot

infrastructure_pivot

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find other domains DechoNet has seen with the same infrastructure value — a nameserver, IP address, MX host, certificate issuer or registrar — with first and last seen, to map related infrastructure (e.g. other phishing domains on the same rare nameserver). Use it after domain_history or dns_lookup gives you a distinctive value. Shared infrastructure (CDN edges, public CAs, large registrars and DNS hosts) returns a count only, since sharing it says nothing about ownership. Read-only; REQUIRES a free DechoNet API key (account page; remote: send Authorization: Bearer dn_…, npm: set DECHONET_API_KEY); up to 20 rows per call (higher for some keys); rate-limited. Coverage: only DechoNet's own observations.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes	Which kind of value to pivot on.
`value`	Yes	The value itself, e.g. 'ns1.example-dns.net' or '203.0.113.9'.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes
`note`	No
`total`	Yes
`value`	Yes
`targets`	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	How DechoNet observes infrastructure (dechonet.com)
`sharedInfra`	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"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 14, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / reportUrl

Added value: +{
+  "description": "How DechoNet observes infrastructure (dechonet.com)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "kind",
-  "value",
-  "total",
-  "targets"
-]New value: +[
+  "kind",
+  "value",
+  "total",
+  "targets",
+  "reportUrl"
+]

AddedOct 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, it discloses auth requirements (free API key, exact Authorization header, env var), the 20-row cap with variance by key, rate limiting, coverage scope, and the key behavioral quirk that shared infrastructure collapses to a count. This is unusually rich disclosure.

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-loads purpose, then caveats, then auth/limits, so the important content comes first. It is dense and somewhat run-on with stacked parentheticals, but nearly every clause carries operational or behavioral information rather than 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?

With output schema present, return formatting needn't be explained, and the description still covers return semantics (count-only for shared infra), auth, rate limits, row caps, and coverage boundaries. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the enum already lists the kinds, so the description largely restates them. It adds the semantic mapping of which real-world value each kind represents, which is marginal value over the schema. 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?

States a specific verb+resource: find other domains sharing an infrastructure value, and enumerates the value kinds (nameserver, IP, MX host, cert issuer, registrar). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the value sources and giving a concrete use case (other phishing domains on a rare nameserver).

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 ('after domain_history or dns_lookup gives you a distinctive value') and even when results are useless ('shared infrastructure ... returns a count only'). This routes the agent both toward and away from the tool.

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?