Dechonet MCP

Go-Live Readiness Checklist

golive_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a domain is ready to launch or migrate by verifying DNS, propagation, SSL/TLS, HTTPS reachability, and expiration, then get a ready, caution, or not_ready verdict before switching DNS.

Instructions

Check whether a domain is ready to launch or migrate — a go/no-go verdict over five essentials: DNS resolves to an IP, has propagated consistently across global resolvers, SSL/TLS is ready, the site is reachable over HTTPS, and the domain registration is not about to expire. Use this right before flipping DNS to a new server, or to confirm a migration has landed. It answers "can I switch over yet?"; use security_scan for a security posture grade or the individual tools for depth. Any failing essential yields not_ready; only cautions yields caution; all clear yields ready. Read-only (a passive multi-probe, though it does resolve and fetch the domain); requires no API key; rate-limited. Returns the verdict, per-check statuses, and a shareable report link.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain to check for launch/migration readiness (e.g., 'example.com'). Scheme and path are stripped.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`checks`	No
`verdict`	Yes	'ready' \| 'caution' \| 'not_ready'
`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.
`failCount`	No
`passCount`	No
`reportUrl`	Yes	Human-facing interactive report on dechonet.com
`warnCount`	No

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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile, yet the description adds substantial context: the verdict logic (failing essential -> not_ready, cautions -> caution, all clear -> ready), the passive-probe caveat that it nonetheless resolves and fetches, no API key required, and rate-limiting. It honestly reconciles 'read-only' with active network behavior, which is exactly the kind of nuance an agent needs.

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?

Four sentences, each double-loaded: verb+scope first, then when-to-use, then disambiguation, then verdict semantics and constraints. The most decision-relevant content (what it checks and when to call it) is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain returns, yet it still sketches them (verdict, per-check statuses, report link). Combined with usage guidance, verdict rules, and the read-only/rate-limit caveats, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 documents 'domain' including scheme/path stripping. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Check whether a domain is ready') plus resource and enumerates all five essentials it evaluates (DNS resolution, propagation, SSL/TLS, HTTPS reachability, expiry). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming security_scan and 'the individual tools' explicitly, so an agent can route without opening another 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?

Provides explicit timing ('right before flipping DNS to a new server, or to confirm a migration has landed') and frames the decision it answers ('can I switch over yet?'). It names alternative tools (security_scan, individual tools) and the condition that selects them (depth vs. posture grade), leaving nothing to inference.

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