Dechonet MCP

WHOIS / RDAP Domain Lookup

whois_lookup

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve domain registration details including registrar, key dates, nameservers, and status flags via RDAP with WHOIS fallback, to assess domain lifecycle and risk states.

Instructions

Retrieve domain registration data via RDAP (with WHOIS fallback): registrar, creation/expiry/update dates, nameservers, and EPP status flags, highlighting risk states such as clientHold and pendingDelete. Use this for ownership, lifecycle, and expiry questions about a registered domain. Use dns_lookup instead for live DNS records, or reverse_dns/asn_lookup for IP-level ownership. Read-only; requires no API key; rate-limited. Returns registrar, key dates, nameservers, and status flags.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Registered domain name to look up (e.g., 'example.com'). A subdomain is normalized to its registrable domain.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kpis`	No	Key metrics as label/value pairs
`grade`	No	Letter grade (A+ to F) when the tool grades the target
`score`	No	0-100 score when the tool scores the target
`issues`	No	Detected problems, severity-rated
`status`	Yes	Overall verdict, e.g. 'good' \| 'warning' \| 'bad' \| 'info' \| 'unknown'
`actions`	No	Recommended next actions, most important first
`summary`	No	One-paragraph interpretation of the result
`reportUrl`	Yes	Human-facing interactive report for this exact lookup on dechonet.com

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0Sep 8, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "actions": {
+      "description": "Recommended next actions, most important first",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "grade": {
+      "description": "Letter grade (A+ to F) when the tool grades the target",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "issues": {
+      "description": "Detected problems, severity-rated",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "key": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "severity": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "severity",
+          "key"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "kpis": {
+      "description": "Key metrics as label/value pairs",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "label": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "value": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "label",
+          "value"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "reportUrl": {
+      "description": "Human-facing interactive report for this exact lookup on dechonet.com",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "description": "0-100 score when the tool scores the target",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Overall verdict, e.g. 'good' | 'warning' | 'bad' | 'info' | 'unknown'",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "summary": {
+      "description": "One-paragraph interpretation of the result",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status",
+    "reportUrl"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.3Jun 17, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / domain / description

Previous value: -"Domain name to look up"New value: +"Registered domain name to look up (e.g., 'example.com'). A subdomain is normalized to its registrable domain."

First observedv0.1.0Jun 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses extra behavioral traits: RDAP with WHOIS fallback, read-only nature, no API key required, and rate-limiting. This enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect.

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 compact and information-dense, with no redundant phrases. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: what it returns, when to use it, and additional constraints.

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 output schema exists, the description appropriately refrains from detailing return structure but still mentions the key output categories (registrar, key dates, nameservers, status flags). It covers all necessary context for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'domain' is fully described with an example and the normalization behavior ('A subdomain is normalized to its registrable domain'). Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds valuable detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a precise resource ('domain registration data'), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like dns_lookup and reverse_dns/asn_lookup. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this for ownership, lifecycle, and expiry questions') and when-not-to ('Use dns_lookup instead for live DNS records'). This removes any ambiguity about selection.

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

Deploy Server