OwnYourAgent Agentvoordeur

Get the Ownership Check (Eigendomscheck)

get_ownership_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the Ownership Check (Eigendomscheck): a vendor-neutral checklist with fixed IDs to test whether an AI agent is owned by the customer, with any vendor, including OwnYourAgent. Sections: exit (E-01..E-10, before signing), protocol (P-, MCP versions and ownership), data (D-), proofs (A-) and switching (X-); only sections whose guide is published are returned, sectionsPlanned lists all. Each item has the question or item and, where the guide gives them, a good answer, a red flag or a done-when. Licence CC BY 4.0: cite the source URL. Not legal advice.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_ownership_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No	Language of the returned text: nl (Dutch) or en (English). Omit to get both.
`section`	No	One section, or all (default).	all

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`url`	Yes
`items`	Yes
`usage`	Yes
`license`	Yes
`purpose`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`reviewed`	Yes
`sections`	Yes
`publisher`	Yes
`notLegalAdvice`	Yes
`sectionsPlanned`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, but the description still adds real behavioral detail beyond them: only sections whose guide is published are returned while sectionsPlanned lists all, and outputs carry a CC BY 4.0 attribution obligation ('cite the source URL'). The 'Not legal advice' disclaimer is useful context too; only caching/freshness behavior is unstated.

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 purpose and scope are front-loaded and the section inventory is compactly parenthesized. It is dense — several clauses are packed into one long sentence — but every clause (fixed IDs, partial-section behaviour, licence, disclaimer) carries information an agent needs.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return shape need not be explained, and the description covers what the schema cannot: partial publication of sections, fixed ID conventions, and licensing obligations. Only minor operational details (freshness/pagination of a long checklist) are absent, which is acceptable for a static reference lookup.

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 coverage is 100% and both enums are self-describing, so a 3 would be the baseline. The description goes further by decoding what each section value actually contains (exit = pre-signing checks E-01..E-10, protocol = MCP versions and ownership, proofs, switching, etc.), which meaningfully reduces the need to guess before choosing a section filter.

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 and resource ('Returns the Ownership Check (Eigendomscheck)') plus the concrete artifact it yields: a vendor-neutral checklist with fixed IDs. The enumerated section structure (exit, protocol, data, proofs, switching) plus the 'only published sections are returned' caveat clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_agreement_card_template or get_offers.

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: the 'exit' section is annotated as 'before signing', which hints at when the checklist matters, and 'Not legal advice' frames expectations. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus siblings such as get_approach or get_offers, and no 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 OwnYourAgent Agentvoordeur 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?