Dechonet MCP

DNS Propagation Check

dns_propagation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check DNS propagation across 8+ global resolvers to see which still serve stale records after a change, ensuring worldwide updates.

Instructions

Query one DNS record across 8+ global public resolvers (Google, Cloudflare, Quad9, OpenDNS, and more) simultaneously and report which resolvers return stale versus updated values. Use this after changing a record to confirm worldwide propagation. Use dns_lookup instead for a single authoritative answer with SPF/DMARC validation. Read-only; requires no API key; rate-limited. Returns per-resolver values and a consistency verdict.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No	DNS record type to compare across resolvers. Defaults to A (IPv4 address), the most common propagation check.	A
`domain`	Yes	Domain whose record to compare across resolvers (e.g., 'example.com'), without scheme or path.

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"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.3Jun 17, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / domain / description

Previous value: -"Domain to check"New value: +"Domain whose record to compare across resolvers (e.g., 'example.com'), without scheme or path."

changedInput schema / properties / type / description

Previous value: -"Record type"New value: +"DNS record type to compare across resolvers. Defaults to A (IPv4 address), the most common propagation check."

First observedv0.1.0Jun 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints in annotations, the description discloses operational traits such as requiring no API key and being rate-limited, and states what it returns ('per-resolver values and a consistency verdict'). It does not mention edge cases like resolver timeouts, but the added behavioral context is useful.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by usage guidance and a sibling-tool contrast. No redundant or filler wording is present.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a network diagnostic tool, the description covers the main purpose, usage, and return shape at a high level. The output schema is noted as present, and the description clarifies the key verdict concept. It could mention resolver count specifics or failure behavior, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and call it.

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?

Both parameters are well described. 'domain' includes an example and format guidance; 'type' lists an enum, has a default, and explains why A is the default. Schema coverage is 100%, and the descriptions add meaningful detail beyond the raw schema.

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 action ('Query one DNS record across 8+ global public resolvers...') and resource ('DNS propagation check'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling dns_lookup tool by noting the difference between multi-resolver propagation checks and single authoritative lookups.

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 this tool ('Use this after changing a record to confirm worldwide propagation') and when to choose an alternative ('Use dns_lookup instead for a single authoritative answer...'). No ambiguity is left about the intended use case.

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

Deploy Server