Dechonet MCP

Domain Change History

domain_changes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Track what changed on a domain since your last lookup or over time, revealing security regressions and drift across SSL, DNS, headers, email, and OWASP posture. Run it first when revisiting a domain.

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. It is the first check to run when a domain looked at before comes up again. Two sources: (a) the daily watch timeline if the domain is under DechoNet monitoring, 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
`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	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.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.14Oct 15, 2026

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"
+}

Addedv1.2.2Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety profile, but the description adds real context: it requires no API key, is rate-limited, and operates from two sources (daily watch timeline, or the diff of the last two stored lookups). The rate-limit disclosure is vague (no numbers), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, sources, and return/behavioral notes. It is fairly dense with several sentences, but each adds decision-relevant information rather than filler. Slightly long relative to the single-parameter surface.

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 return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes the return shape (monitored tools, newest-first timeline, lookup-to-lookup changes, management link). Combined with the two-source explanation and point-in-time contrast, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 the schema already documents it at 100% coverage (including the scheme/path stripping behavior), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource: reporting what changed for a domain over time, enumerating the monitored dimensions (SSL grade, headers, DNS, OWASP posture, impersonation exposure). It clearly separates itself from the point-in-time tools (security_scan, owasp_check, ssl_check). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling 'domain_history' or 'watch_domain', leaving some ambiguity among similarly named tools.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('answer what changed since yesterday/last week', 'first check when a domain comes up again') and explicit alternatives ('the point-in-time tools give the current state instead'). It even states the condition that makes it meaningful (requires persistent snapshots, cannot be reconstructed from a live lookup).

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