Dechonet MCP

Watch a Domain (daily re-check)

watch_domain

Idempotent

Start or reuse a daily DechoNet watch on a domain to track SSL, DNS, HTTP, and registration changes over time, then see what changed since the last snapshot.

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, 'pqc' to record the day post-quantum key exchange is turned on, 'exposure' to catch a newly exposed admin screen, dev tool or staging server.
`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
`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

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"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.3.1Oct 6, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / tools / description

Previous value: -"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."New value: +"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, 'pqc' to record the day post-quantum key exchange is turned on, 'exposure' to catch a newly exposed admin screen, dev tool or staging server."

changedInput schema / properties / tools / items / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "ssl",
-  "dns",
-  "http",
-  "rdap",
-  "owasp",
-  "impersonation"
-]New value: +[
+  "ssl",
+  "dns",
+  "http",
+  "rdap",
+  "owasp",
+  "impersonation",
+  "pqc",
+  "exposure"
+]

Addedv1.2.2Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses idempotent reuse of an existing watch, that it is a write despite being non-destructive, that no account/email/PII is required, that the history page is a public but unguessable shareable URL, and that it is rate-limited to a few watches per minute. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) are consistent and the description enriches rather than repeats them.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the action, then usage trigger, then follow-on tool, then behavioral caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information — no restatement of the name or title, 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers the operational facts an agent needs before calling: idempotency, rate limit, no-auth requirement, and shareability of the resulting page. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter documentation is already complete (baseline 3). The description adds meaning by spelling out what the recorded artifacts actually are (SSL grade/issuer/expiry, DNS records, HTTP security headers, domain registration) and by noting that scheme/path are stripped from the domain, which helps the agent reason about what the 'tools' selections buy.

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+resource ('Start (or reuse) a daily DechoNet watch on a domain') and enumerates exactly what it records (SSL, DNS, HTTP headers, registration, optional OWASP/impersonation). It distinguishes itself from the one-off siblings ('beyond a one-off check') and from domain_changes/domain_history, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 trigger ('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') plus the follow-on relationship ('After this, domain_changes answers "what changed since last time?"'). This is routing-grade guidance, naming both the alternative and the condition that selects this tool.

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