Skip to main content
Glama

Opedd — Licensed Content for AI

by com.opedd

rsl_get

Fetch a publisher's RSL Standard manifest via GET /rsl-manifest (Phase 12 Wave 1 W1.1). Public no-auth endpoint — discovery surface for AI agents/crawlers wanting to know what's licensable from a publisher BEFORE going through the buyer-account signup flow. Returns the 4 canonical license types (ai_retrieval, ai_training, human_per_article, human_full_archive) the publisher has opted into, plus the EU CDSM Article 4(3) opt-out posture (tdm_reservation). Set jsonld: true to request the JSON-LD shape with embedded HMAC-SHA256 signed receipt over the CDSM Article 4(3) reservation state + tdm:reservationSignedAt timestamp — regulators can post-hoc verify the reservation was the claimed value at the claimed time. Default jsonld: false returns the raw RSL Standard JSON manifest. Per INVARIANTS.md W1.6: this is the PUBLISHER-side CDSM Article 4(3) declaration surface. It is NOT an EU AI Act Article 53 attestation (which is buyer-side, JWT-auth, via article_53_attestation tool).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jsonldNoIf true, request JSON-LD shape (Accept: application/ld+json) with embedded HMAC-SHA256 signed receipt. Default false returns raw RSL Standard JSON shape.
publisher_idYesUUID of the publisher whose RSL manifest to fetch. Publisher must be verified.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the endpoint is public and no-auth, explains the two response shapes (raw JSON vs JSON-LD with HMAC-SHA256 signed receipt), and notes the publisher-side CDSM context. This is rich behavioral detail beyond basic read operation.

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?

The description is informative and front-loaded with the core purpose, but includes some internal project references like 'Phase 12 Wave 1 W1.1' and 'Per INVARIANTS.md W1.6' that add noise. Overall, each sentence earns its place despite the verbosity.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides comprehensive context: what the manifest contains, why an agent would use it, how the jsonld flag changes the response, and how this tool differs from the sibling attestation tool. It is complete for a simple GET endpoint.

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 covers both parameters with detailed descriptions (e.g., jsonld includes the signed receipt behavior). The tool description largely repeats this information without adding new parameter-level semantics. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Fetch a publisher's RSL Standard manifest via GET /rsl-manifest', which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'article_53_attestation' by explicitly noting it is NOT the EU AI Act Article 53 attestation.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance: it is a 'discovery surface for AI agents/crawlers wanting to know what's licensable from a publisher BEFORE going through the buyer-account signup flow' and explicitly contrasts it with the buyer-side `article_53_attestation` tool. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use 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