Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Dechonet-MCP

by com.dechonet
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Full Domain Security Scan

security_scan
Read-onlyIdempotent

One-shot comprehensive audit of a domain, scored 0-100 with an A+ to F grade and a prioritized action list. Five scored areas: the web connection (TLS certificate and HTTP security headers, measured on www when only www has an address), mail spoofing defence (SPF/DKIM/DMARC; a domain that uses no mail is judged only on SPF -all and an enforced DMARC policy), domain registration and DNS, exposure (admin screens, developer tools and the like on hosts named in public certificate logs — counts only), and reputation (DechoNet verdict store and licensed phishing feeds). DNS propagation, reverse DNS and ASN are returned as reference information and not scored. A warning costs a quarter of its area and a critical half; data that could not be read in full is flagged, not charged, and an exposure or reputation lookup that fails is reported as not checked. Call the individual tools (e.g., ssl_check, email_auth, exposure_map) for depth on one area. BEHAVIOR: passive — public lookups and ordinary HTTPS requests only; open ports are NOT scanned (port_scan is the separate, active check). Takes up to about a minute (the exposure lookup). Read-only; requires no API key; rate-limited (it makes multiple backend calls). Returns the score, per-area breakdown, reference areas, top actions, and per-area summaries.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain to audit (e.g., 'example.com'). Scheme and path are stripped.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
areasYesPer-area verdicts of the scored areas (ssl, http, email, rdap, dns, exposure, reputation)
gradeYesLetter grade A+ to F
scoreYesHealth Score 0-100
actionsNoTop recommended actions
receiptsNoSigned 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.
referenceNoReference areas, not scored (propagation, reverseDns, asn): the tool status
reportUrlYesHuman-facing interactive report on dechonet.com

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / areas / description
      Previous value: -"Per-area verdicts (dns, ssl, http, email, port, propagation, rdap, reverseDns, asn)"New value: +"Per-area verdicts of the scored areas (ssl, http, email, rdap, dns, exposure, reputation)"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / reference
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Reference areas, not scored (propagation, reverseDns, asn): the tool status",
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "area": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "status": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "area",
+      "status"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / domain / description
      Previous value: -"Domain to audit end-to-end (e.g., 'example.com'). Scheme and path are stripped. NOTE: the host is also port-scanned, so use only targets you are authorized to test."New value: +"Domain to audit (e.g., 'example.com'). Scheme and path are stripped."
  4. First observed

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 (readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive) by disclosing passivity, that open ports are not scanned, ~1 minute duration driven by the exposure lookup, no API key needed, rate limiting, and the scoring/penalty mechanics including how unreadable data is flagged rather than charged.

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?

Dense but front-loaded — the headline purpose and grade come first, followed by areas, scoring rules, and a labeled BEHAVIOR block. Length is justified by the complexity, though the sentence packing (semicolon-laden clauses) is heavier than strictly needed.

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 complex, multi-area audit tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers scope, scoring semantics, timing, and safety boundaries completely. Return values are covered by the output schema, so 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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the meaning ('Domain to audit', and the scheme/path stripping note). The prose adds nothing further about the domain argument, so the 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'One-shot comprehensive audit of a domain, scored 0-100 with an A+ to F grade.' It enumerates the five scored areas and explicitly contrasts itself with depth-oriented siblings (ssl_check, email_auth, exposure_map), so an agent can distinguish it from the 30 sibling tools immediately.

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?

States when to use this (broad one-shot audit) versus the individual tools for depth on one area, and clarifies the boundary with port_scan ('open ports are NOT scanned ... port_scan is the separate, active check'). Both the alternative and the exclusion condition are explicit.

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

All Dechonet-MCP toolsInspect
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