Dechonet MCP

Domain Change History

domain_changes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check what changed on a domain since your last lookup. View recorded security regressions and drift across SSL, headers, DNS, OWASP, and impersonation using stored daily snapshots.

Instructions

Report what has CHANGED for a domain over time — the security regressions and drift that DechoNet's daily monitoring has recorded across every watch on the domain (SSL grade, headers, DNS, OWASP posture, impersonation exposure, etc.). Use this to answer "what changed on my domain since yesterday/last week?" — a question that requires persistent snapshots and therefore cannot be reconstructed from a single live lookup. Call it FIRST whenever a domain you have looked at before comes up again. Two sources: (a) the daily watch timeline if the domain is watched (start one with watch_domain), and (b) even without a watch, the difference between the last two stored lookups of each tool — so a second lookup already yields a comparison. The point-in-time tools (security_scan, owasp_check, ssl_check) give the current state instead. Read-only; requires no API key; rate-limited. Returns the monitored tools, a newest-first change timeline, lookup-to-lookup changes, and a link to manage monitoring.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain whose recorded change history to fetch (e.g., 'example.com'). Scheme and path are stripped.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes
`changes`	No	Recorded changes, newest first
`watched`	Yes	Whether the domain is under an active daily watch
`reportUrl`	Yes	Where a human can start or manage monitoring
`changeCount`	No	Number of changes recorded
`historyChanges`	No	Lookup-to-lookup changes, newest first
`historyChangeCount`	No	Changes found between the last two stored lookups per tool (no watch needed)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.2.2Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it mentions two data sources (watch timeline, stored lookups), read-only nature, no API key required, rate-limiting, and the return contents (monitored tools, timeline, changes). This supplements annotations well.

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 description is wordy but structured: it front-loads the core purpose, includes usage guidance, sources, pointers to alternatives, and return contents. While it is dense, it is not redundant; each sentence delivers information. The length is justified given the tool's complexity and the need to explain both sources.

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?

The tool has a single parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema. The description explains what data sources are used, when to use it, how it relates to siblings, and what it returns. It does not explain the output schema in detail but that is covered by structured data. Everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema coverage is 100% for the one parameter (domain), and the schema description is adequate: it explains example and stripping of scheme/path. The description adds context about how domain is used (fetching history) but relies on schema for syntax. Given high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds value by indicating domain's role in the history context.

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's purpose: reporting changes over time on a domain, with specific examples of what it tracks (SSL grade, headers, DNS, OWASP posture, impersonation exposure). It distinguishes itself from point-in-time tools explicitly and lists sibling alternatives, making the function 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: answer questions about changes over time, call it first when a domain is revisited, and notes scenarios even without a watch (based on stored lookups). It directly contrasts with point-in-time tools and mentions watch_domain as a way to start a watch. This is model guidance.

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