Dechonet MCP

Brand Impersonation Exposure

impersonation_exposure

Read-onlyIdempotent

Passively assess a domain's impersonation exposure by checking live lookalike domains, exposed subdomains, and wildcard certs. Returns an A+ to F grade to verify phishing risk.

Instructions

Assess how exposed a domain is to brand impersonation and phishing, PASSIVELY: live typosquat/lookalike domains (homoglyph, omission, transposition, TLD swap) that actually resolve, operational subdomains (dev/staging/admin) exposed in CT logs, and whether a wildcard certificate exists — returning an A+ (low exposure) to F (high exposure) grade. NEUTRAL FRAMING (important): a registered lookalike domain is NOT proof of impersonation — it may be a legitimate third party or the owner's own. Report it as exposure to verify, never as an accusation against a specific domain. Fully passive: public DNS delegation checks plus public CT-log queries, sending nothing to the target or the lookalike domains, so it is safe and lawful to run. Use lookalike_domains or subdomain_discovery for the raw per-tool detail. Read-only; requires no API key; rate-limited. Returns a text report: grade, counts, per-category findings, and a shareable report link.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Registrable domain to assess for impersonation exposure (e.g., 'example.com'). Scheme and path are stripped.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`grade`	Yes	Exposure grade A+ (low exposure) to F (high exposure)
`score`	Yes	0-100, higher = less exposed
`wildcard`	No	Whether a wildcard certificate exists
`reportUrl`	Yes	Human-facing interactive report on dechonet.com
`typosquatCount`	Yes	Live third-party lookalike/typosquat domains (variants on the domain's own nameservers/IP are excluded)
`riskySubdomainCount`	Yes	Exposed operational subdomains found

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.2.2Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds significant non-obvious behavior beyond annotations: fully passive, sends nothing to the target or lookalikes, rate-limited, no API key, and the critical neutral-framing warning that a lookalike is not proof of impersonation. This is exactly the kind of operational and ethical context an agent needs to invoke the tool safely and interpret results correctly.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then passive/neutral warnings, then alternatives, then output summary. It is somewhat verbose, but each sentence carries relevant operational, safety, or ethical guidance, so no sentence is wasted.

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?

Covers purpose, behavior, safety, alternatives, and output summary (grade, counts, findings, shareable link). With an output schema present, the report summary is sufficient. No critical invocation context appears missing, though the long list of checks could have been ordered more hierarchically.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the single domain parameter fully described in the input schema (including scheme/path stripping and example). The description itself adds little new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('assess') and resource ('domain'), enumerates concrete checks (typosquat/lookalike domains, CT-log subdomains, wildcard cert) and explicitly names sibling tools (lookalike_domains, subdomain_discovery) for raw detail, making differentiation effortless. Agents can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from its siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear context: it is a passive, high-level exposure grade, and explicitly tells users to use lookalike_domains or subdomain_discovery for raw per-tool detail. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when raw data is required), only implies it through the sibling referral.

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