stack-and-dns-mcp

Domain Change History

domain_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve recorded domain scan history to track technology adoption or removal, email security changes, and dated change logs without running a new scan.

Instructions

Return everything this server has recorded about a domain from earlier scans, without running a new one: current and past technologies with first-seen and last-seen dates, the latest email posture (MX provider, SPF and DMARC policy, DKIM selectors, high risks), and a dated change log (technologies added or removed, DMARC weakened, DKIM key lost, MX provider changed, score drops). Use it to spot a prospect that just adopted or dropped a tool, or to see how a domain's email security has moved over time. known=false means the domain has never been scanned here; run inspect_tech_stack or verify_email_infrastructure first. Cost: 1 credit.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain to inspect. Accepts a bare hostname ("example.com"), a URL ("https://www.example.com/pricing") or an email address ("jane@example.com"). Scheme, path, port and query are stripped; IDN names are accepted.
`changesLimit`	No	Maximum number of recorded changes to return, newest first.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	Yes
`known`	Yes	False when this server has never scanned the domain; every other field is then empty.
`domain`	Yes
`billing`	Yes
`changes`	Yes
`firstSeen`	Yes
`recentScans`	Yes
`technologies`	Yes
`lastTechScanAt`	Yes
`lastEmailScanAt`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that no new scan is performed, the exact categories of data returned, the known=false sentinel meaning the domain was never scanned, and a cost of 1 credit. These are operationally important facts the annotations cannot express.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The scoping constraint and the no-new-scan guarantee are front-loaded, followed by return contents, use cases, the known=false caveat, and cost. Each sentence carries distinct information with no filler or repetition.

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 read-only history lookup with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: prerequisites, empty-result semantics, cost, and interpretation guidance. Nothing material is left implicit.

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 both parameters are documented in detail, so the description does not need to restate them. It implies the change log is bounded and dated (relating to changesLimit) but adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return everything this server has recorded about a domain from earlier scans, without running a new one.' The negative scope ('without running a new one') plus the explicit pointer to inspect_tech_stack and verify_email_infrastructure clearly separates it from the siblings that perform fresh scans.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use cases ('spot a prospect that just adopted or dropped a tool', 'see how a domain's email security has moved over time') and an explicit fallback condition: if known=false, run inspect_tech_stack or verify_email_infrastructure first. Both the positive and negative cases are covered.

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

Deploy Server