Rightshold

Assess a resource for an intended use

assess_resource_for_use

Call when the asset is a registered resource and you need its exact answer for one use. Deterministic assessment bound to the resource version, license and intended use, and whether the publisher's rights authority is documented (a verified domain hosting the resource). Four dispositions with reason codes; no trust score. Free, no key.

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": {
      "resource_id": "<resource_id>",
      "intended_use": "<intended_use>"
    },
    "name": "assess_resource_for_use"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`resource_id`	Yes	Registered resource id
`intended_use`	Yes	Uses to check: each true flag must be documented; omitted = false; unknown fields refused. For instance {"commercial_use":true}

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 20, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / api_key

Removed value: -{
-  "deprecated": true,
-  "description": "Deprecated: use Authorization: Bearer <key>. With a key the assessment is kept in your account.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / properties / intended_use / description

Previous value: -"Intended use: every true flag is a right the check must find documented; omitted flags are false; unknown fields are refused. For instance {\"commercial_use\":true,\"deployment\":true,\"attribution_planned\":true,\"duration_days\":365}"New value: +"Uses to check: each true flag must be documented; omitted = false; unknown fields refused. For instance {\"commercial_use\":true}"

addedInput schema / properties / resource_id / description
```
Added value: +"Registered resource id"
```

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 18, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / api_key / deprecated
```
Added value: +true
```

changedInput schema / properties / api_key / description

Previous value: -"Optional: your Rightshold API key, so the assessment is kept in your own account (otherwise it is kept in the public workspace). Not needed if your MCP client sends Authorization: Bearer <key>."New value: +"Deprecated: use Authorization: Bearer <key>. With a key the assessment is kept in your account."

changedInput schema / properties / intended_use / description

Previous value: -"Intended use. Every true flag is a right the assessment must find documented; omitted flags are false. Unknown fields are refused (invalid_intended_use). For instance {\"commercial_use\":true,\"deployment\":true,\"attribution_planned\":true,\"duration_days\":365}"New value: +"Intended use: every true flag is a right the check must find documented; omitted flags are false; unknown fields are refused. For instance {\"commercial_use\":true,\"deployment\":true,\"attribution_planned\":true,\"duration_days\":365}"

Changed1 schema field changedOct 14, 2026
- changedOutput schema / (root)
```
Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
```
First observedOct 12, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the assessment is deterministic and bound to resource version, license and intended use; it returns four dispositions with reason codes; it is free and needs no key. It does not explain why readOnlyHint=false (side effects, quota, ledger write?) or why idempotentHint=false despite 'deterministic', which is a notable unexplained tension.

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 call condition is front-loaded and the remaining sentences carry distinct facts (binding, dispositions, cost). Dense but nearly waste-free; the middle sentence is somewhat overloaded with three clauses.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description still covers cost, auth ('no key'), determinism, and the registered-resource precondition. An agent has enough to call this correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the intended_use object documents each flag, omitted=false and refusal of unknown fields, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that the assessment is bound to intended use; it adds no format or semantics beyond the schema.

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+resource (deterministic assessment of a registered resource against one intended use) and distinguishes itself from reputation-style checks with 'no trust score'. It implies a single-use counterpart to a batch sibling but never names it, so the boundary with check_license/check_rights_batch must be inferred.

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?

'Call when the asset is a registered resource and you need its exact answer for one use' gives a clear triggering condition and scopes it to a single use. It does not name the alternative (e.g. batch rights checks) or state when-not to call it, so routing still requires inference.

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

All Rightshold 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?