Clipwright

clipwright_register_grant

Register a rights grant: kind is one of owned | program_brief | licence_file | open_licence. Verified by execution at registration. Requires confirm=true.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "scope": "<scope>",
      "payload": "<payload>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "clipwright_register_grant"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes
`scope`	Yes
`confirm`	Yes	Must be true. This tool writes records; the call is refused without it.
`payload`	Yes
`expires_ts`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the call is refused without confirm=true and that grants are "verified by execution at registration," which is useful guardrail context. It does not explain what happens on re-registration of an existing grant or what validation failure looks like, despite the non-idempotent hint.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the kind enum and confirm requirement are surfaced first. "Verified by execution at registration" is slightly opaque wording that costs a point but does not bloat the text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a write tool with five parameters, two of them nested objects, 20% schema coverage, and no output schema. Leaving the shape and meaning of scope and payload entirely undocumented is a significant gap for a registration call an agent must construct correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 20% across five parameters, and the description only restates the kind enum and the confirm requirement, both of which the schema already supplies. The nested scope, payload, and expires_ts parameters – the substantive ones for a rights grant – receive no explanation anywhere, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Register a rights grant") and enumerates the four valid grant kinds, which makes the tool's role distinguishable from the read-only clipwright_check_rights sibling. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with that sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the phrase "Register a rights grant" – an agent can infer this is the write path for recording rights. There is no explicit statement of when to register versus when to check existing rights, and no preconditions (e.g. whether the grant must be verified first) are named.

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

All Clipwright tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?