Dechonet MCP

Watch a Domain (daily re-check)

watch_domain

Idempotent

Start daily monitoring of a domain to track changes in SSL, DNS, HTTP headers, and registration. Reuse an existing watch for continuous updates and get answers on what changed since last check.

Instructions

Start (or reuse) a daily DechoNet watch on a domain so that changes are recorded over time — SSL grade/issuer/expiry, DNS records, HTTP security headers, domain registration, and optionally OWASP posture and impersonation exposure. Use this once when the user cares about a domain beyond a one-off check (their own domain, a client, a vendor, a target under investigation). After this, domain_changes answers "what changed since last time?" from real daily snapshots. Not read-only (it creates a watch record) but idempotent: watching an already-watched domain returns the existing watch. No account, no email, no PII — a watch is keyed by domain+tool and its history page is a public unguessable URL you can share with the user. Rate-limited (a few watches per minute).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tools`	No	Which checks to re-run daily. Default ['ssl','dns','http','rdap'] (certificate, DNS, security headers, registration). Add 'owasp' and/or 'impersonation' for posture and brand-exposure tracking.
`domain`	Yes	Registered domain to watch (e.g., 'example.com'). Scheme and path are stripped.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes
`failed`	No	Tools that could not be watched (rate limit or error)
`watches`	Yes	One entry per tool now under a daily watch
`reportUrl`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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?

The description goes well beyond annotations by explaining that the tool is not read-only, is idempotent and returns the existing watch, requires no account/email/PII, produces a public unguessable URL, and is rate-limited. These behavioral details are not present in the annotations and materially help an agent set expectations.

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 moderately sized but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage trigger, downstream relationship, idempotence, privacy, and rate limits. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and does not include fluff or redundant schema restatement.

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?

Given the simple schema (2 params, 1 required), the rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all selection and invocation-relevant details: when to use, behavioral side effects, idempotence, rate limiting, and privacy. Nothing critical for correct invocation 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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, including the tools enum, defaults, and domain normalization. The description merely restates the optional OWASP and impersonation checks at a high level, adding no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. 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?

The description explicitly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Start (or reuse) a daily DechoNet watch on a domain so that changes are recorded over time.' It enumerates the tracked data (SSL grade/issuer/expiry, DNS records, headers, registration), and distinguishes itself from the sibling domain_changes by explaining that this tool creates the watch while domain_changes reports changes.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this once when the user cares about a domain beyond a one-off check' and lists example scenarios. It also positions the tool relative to domain_changes (what to use after watching) and clarifies reuse via idempotence. The 'beyond a one-off check' phrase implicitly excludes one-off scan alternatives.

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