Skip to main content
Glama

Opedd — Licensed Content for AI

by com.opedd

purchase_enterprise_license

Purchase a bulk enterprise license covering multiple publishers (Phase 10). Returns a Stripe client_secret for payment completion + the enterprise_license_id. After payment, an ent_* access key is emailed to buyer_email. Scopes: 'custom' (pass-through publisher_ids), 'platform_wide' (auto-resolve all opted-in publishers), 'filtered' (Phase 10 filter_rules). License tiers: 'rag' (= ai_retrieval), 'training' (= ai_training, flat-fee not metered), 'inference' (= ai_retrieval), 'full_ai' (writes both retrieval + training records). The buyer must accept the Opedd Master Services Agreement (opedd.com/terms) before purchase — set terms_accepted=true to record it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeNoCoverage scope (default: custom)
buyer_orgYesBuyer organization name (for billing + audit ledger)
buyer_emailYesEmail to deliver the access key after payment
billing_typeNoBilling cadence (default: annual)
filter_rulesNoRequired when scope='filtered'. See Phase 10 docs for shape: excluded_publisher_ids / direct_license_carveouts / categories / max_price_per_event.
license_tierNoLicense tier (default: rag)
publisher_idsYesArray of publisher UUIDs. Required for scope='custom'; ignored for platform_wide/filtered (resolved server-side).
terms_acceptedYesREQUIRED. Set true only after the buyer (your principal) has accepted the Opedd Master Services Agreement at opedd.com/terms. The current MSA version label is recorded with the licence; purchases without genuine acceptance are rejected (HTTP 400).
duration_monthsNoLicense duration in months (default: 12)
buyer_webhook_urlNoOptional HMAC-signed webhook for content.published events on covered publishers

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers rich behavioral detail: returns a Stripe client_secret and enterprise_license_id, emails the access key after payment, defines scope behaviors (custom pass-through, platform_wide auto-resolve, filtered rules), maps license tiers to internal types, and requires terms_accepted with HTTP 400 rejection. This is exemplary transparency for a purchase workflow.

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?

Despite its length, every sentence adds critical information: purpose, return values, scopes, tiers, terms, and edge cases. It is front-loaded with the main action and returns, then systematically expands on options. No fluff or redundancy—it is dense but well-structured for a complex tool.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and a complex domain (licensing, scopes, tiers, MSA acceptance). The description covers the return format (client_secret + ID), email delivery, scope-specific behavior, tier mappings, and legal requirement. It also mentions filter_rules documentation and optional webhook. Given the complexity, this description is remarkably complete.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description goes far beyond the property descriptions. It clarifies the meaning of scope values (e.g., 'custom' pass-through vs 'platform_wide' auto-resolve), maps license_tier values to internal record types, explains that publisher_ids is ignored for non-custom scopes, and details the terms_accepted requirement. This adds significant semantic value that is not present in the schema alone.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Purchase a bulk enterprise license covering multiple publishers (Phase 10).' It clearly states what the tool does and differentiates from sibling tools like purchase_license by focusing on bulk enterprise coverage. The return values are also explicitly mentioned, making the 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: for bulk enterprise licenses covering multiple publishers, with scope and tier options. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling purchase_license tool or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of fully explicit when/when-not guidance.

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

All Opedd — Licensed Content for AI toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but list_feed and stream_feed_ndjson both list licensed articles (with different formats), and browse_registry vs publisher_directory could confuse agents about scope. Overall, the set is mostly clear.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names follow a verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., get_content, purchase_license). A few outliers like rsl_get and article_53_attestation break the pattern slightly, but the majority are consistent.

Tool Count4/5

17 tools cover buyer, publisher, and discovery workflows. While slightly above the typical 3-15 range, the complexity of the licensing platform justifies the count. No tool seems redundant.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers discovery, purchase, content retrieval, compliance, and attestation comprehensively. Minor gaps like missing license management or key rotation are acceptable given the domain scope.

Resources