Rightshold

Gate: may a site accept this agent or upload?

gate_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Free. The Gate websites use on agent traffic: checks an RS-KYA token (or handle), any signer's Web Bot Auth signature, a Rights Receipt, clearance and intent token against the site's policy (min_kya_level, require_kya, require_web_bot_auth, allowed_signature_agents, require_receipt, allow_agents, deny_agents, require_clearance, require_intent, max_intent_risk); allow or deny, with reasons.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`agent`	No
`policy`	No
`receipt`	No
`request`	No	The signed request {method, url, headers} as received: its Web Bot Auth signature, and the intent token's key binding.
`clearance`	No
`kya_token`	No
`asset_sha256`	No
`intent_token`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 17, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / request / description

Previous value: -"The signed request {method, url, headers}, to bind the intent token to the agent's key."New value: +"The signed request {method, url, headers} as received: its Web Bot Auth signature, and the intent token's key binding."

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 17, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / clearance
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedInput schema / properties / intent_token
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedInput schema / properties / request

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The signed request {method, url, headers}, to bind the intent token to the agent's key.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedOct 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world). The description adds genuinely new context: the call is free, it is a deterministic policy evaluation over a fixed list of policy flags, and it returns allow/deny with reasons rather than a bare boolean. It does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens when optional inputs are omitted.

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?

Front-loaded with 'Free.' followed by the substantive content in a single dense sentence; the long parenthetical policy list is the only bloat, but it does carry real information. No filler or restatement of the title.

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

Completeness3/5

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 explained. Still, for an 8-parameter tool with zero required params and nested policy/receipt/request objects, the description gives no guidance on which inputs are needed for which policy configuration, leaving a real gap for an agent assembling a call.

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 description coverage is only 13% (one of eight params documented), so the description must compensate. It does map most artifacts to concepts – RS-KYA token, handle, Web Bot Auth signature, Rights Receipt, clearance, intent token – and enumerates the policy sub-fields, but asset_sha256 is never mentioned and the distinction between 'agent' handle and 'kya_token' is left unclear.

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 action (checking KYA token, Web Bot Auth signature, Rights Receipt, clearance and intent token against a site policy) and a specific output (allow/deny with reasons). It is clearly an authorization-decision tool rather than a token verifier, which distinguishes it in spirit from kya_check/kya_verify, but it never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 implied by the title ('may a site accept this agent or upload?') and by the enumerated policy fields, so an agent can infer this is the combined gate decision. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer kya_check or check_license instead, and no prerequisites.

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?