Dechonet MCP

DNS Lookup

dns_lookup

Read-onlyIdempotent

Query DNS records for a domain and validate DNSSEC, SPF, and DMARC, returning severity-rated diagnostics and recommended actions.

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
`reportUrl`	Yes	Human-facing interactive report for this exact lookup on dechonet.com

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description notes the tool is read-only, requires no API key, is subject to rate limiting, and returns a text report with status, KPI summary, detected issues, and recommended actions. This aligns with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations and fully discloses the tool's behavior.

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 description is concise yet information-dense, covering purpose, usage guidance, behavior, and output format in a few sentences. No redundant phrases or filler; each sentence contributes necessary details.

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 the output schema exists and the description already summarizes the return format (text report with status/KPI/issues/actions), the context is complete. The description adequately covers what an agent needs to decide when to invoke and what to expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'domain' is described with format constraints (no scheme or trailing slash) and examples. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds practical guidance beyond the schema's basic type definition.

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 clearly states the tool queries DNS records and validates email-related records, including DNSSEC and SPF/DMARC syntax, with severity-rated diagnostics. It explicitly distinguishes itself from dns_propagation and email_auth, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to use this tool for a single authoritative answer about one domain and directs users to dns_propagation for cross-resolver comparisons and email_auth for full SPF/DKIM/DMARC deliverability. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server