Dechonet MCP

DNS Lookup

dns_lookup

Read-onlyIdempotent

Query A, AAAA, MX, TXT, NS, SOA, and CAA records for one domain, validate DNSSEC and SPF/DMARC syntax, and get severity-rated diagnostics.

Instructions

Query DNS records (A, AAAA, MX, TXT, NS, SOA, CAA) for a domain and validate email-related records, including DNSSEC presence and SPF/DMARC syntax, returning severity-rated diagnostics. Use this for a single authoritative answer about one domain. Use dns_propagation instead when you need to compare answers across multiple global resolvers (e.g., right after a change), or email_auth for a full SPF/DKIM/DMARC deliverability assessment. Read-only; requires no API key or authentication; subject to rate limiting. Returns a text report: status, KPI summary, detected issues, and recommended actions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Registrable domain or hostname to query, without scheme or path (e.g., 'example.com' or 'mail.example.com'). Do not include 'http://' or a trailing slash.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kpis`	No	Key metrics as label/value pairs
`grade`	No	Letter grade (A+ to F) when the tool grades the target
`score`	No	0-100 score when the tool scores the target
`issues`	No	Detected problems, severity-rated
`status`	Yes	Overall verdict, e.g. 'good' \| 'warning' \| 'bad' \| 'info' \| 'unknown'
`actions`	No	Recommended next actions, most important first
`summary`	No	One-paragraph interpretation of the result
`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 interactive report for this exact lookup on dechonet.com
`observation`	No	How much was actually observed and when. A partial observation means some checks did not answer: missing parts are not verified, never clean.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.14Oct 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / observation

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "How much was actually observed and when. A partial observation means some checks did not answer: missing parts are not verified, never clean.",
+  "properties": {
+    "ageMinutes": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "cached": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "observedAt": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "state": {
+      "enum": [
+        "complete",
+        "partial",
+        "unknown"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "state",
+    "observedAt",
+    "cached",
+    "ageMinutes"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

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": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "id": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "tool": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "url": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "tool",
+      "id",
+      "url"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0Sep 8, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "actions": {
+      "description": "Recommended next actions, most important first",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "grade": {
+      "description": "Letter grade (A+ to F) when the tool grades the target",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "issues": {
+      "description": "Detected problems, severity-rated",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "key": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "severity": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "severity",
+          "key"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "kpis": {
+      "description": "Key metrics as label/value pairs",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "label": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "value": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "label",
+          "value"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "reportUrl": {
+      "description": "Human-facing interactive report for this exact lookup on dechonet.com",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "description": "0-100 score when the tool scores the target",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Overall verdict, e.g. 'good' | 'warning' | 'bad' | 'info' | 'unknown'",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "summary": {
+      "description": "One-paragraph interpretation of the result",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status",
+    "reportUrl"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.3Jun 17, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / domain / description

Previous value: -"Domain name to query (e.g., example.com)"New value: +"Registrable domain or hostname to query, without scheme or path (e.g., 'example.com' or 'mail.example.com'). Do not include 'http://' or a trailing slash."

First observedv0.1.0Jun 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is handled elsewhere. The description adds real value beyond them: no API key or authentication required, rate limiting applies, and results are severity-rated diagnostics rather than raw records. It stops short of describing pagination or error/failure behavior, keeping it at a 4.

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?

The routing information (what it does, when to use it, which siblings to prefer) is front-loaded in the first three sentences, with operational notes trailing. Slightly long, and the closing sentence describing the returned text report partially duplicates the output schema, but every sentence is informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return values in detail is unnecessary, yet the description still summarizes the report shape. Combined with the auth/rate-limit disclosure and explicit sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the domain format including the no-scheme/no-trailing-slash guidance. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 (Query) and resource (DNS records), enumerates supported record types (A, AAAA, MX, TXT, NS, SOA, CAA), and adds the validation scope (DNSSEC presence, SPF/DMARC syntax). It explicitly distinguishes itself from dns_propagation and email_auth, so an agent can select it correctly without opening any 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('a single authoritative answer about one domain') and two named alternatives with the exact conditions that select them: dns_propagation for cross-resolver comparison after a change, email_auth for full deliverability assessment. Nothing is left to inference.

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