Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Rightshold

by com.rightshold
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Issue a rights manifest for a deliverable

issue_rights_manifest

Use when your principal wants signed proof for a whole deliverable: checks every third-party input (resource_id, license or asset) for its use, reusing licenses you hold, and returns a signed, ledger-committed manifest plus a text summary; verify_rights_manifest checks it. Call with {"title": "Spring campaign", "intended_use": {"commercial_use": true}, "items": [{"ref": "font", "license": "OFL-1.1"}]}.

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "issue_rights_manifest"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes
titleYes
clientNo
api_keyNoDeprecated: use Authorization: Bearer <key> (arguments can reach transcripts).
deliverableNo
intended_useNoUses to check: each true flag must be documented; omitted = false; unknown fields refused. For instance {"commercial_use":true}
idempotency_keyNoOptional: a retry with the same key returns the first proof.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • 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 / items / items / properties / asset / description
      Added value: +"URL or name"
    • addedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / license / description
      Added value: +"SPDX id"
    • addedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / ref / description
      Added value: +"Your label"
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / api_key / deprecated
      Added value: +true
    • changedInput schema / properties / api_key / description
      Previous value: -"Your Rightshold API key (rs_...). Only needed if your MCP client cannot send Authorization: Bearer <key>."New value: +"Deprecated: use Authorization: Bearer <key> (arguments can reach transcripts)."
    • 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}"
  3. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: a retry with the same key returns the proof already issued instead of a second one."New value: +"Optional: a retry with the same key returns the first proof."
    • removedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / intended_use / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / items / items / 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: +"Optional per-item override, same shape as intended_use"
    • removedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / intended_use / properties
      Removed value: -{
-  "attribution_planned": {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  },
-  "commercial_use": {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  },
-  "deployment": {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  },
-  "duration_days": {
-    "description": "Whole days of use (1 to 36500), or null for no fixed term",
-    "maximum": 36500,
-    "minimum": 1,
-    "type": [
-      "integer",
-      "null"
-    ]
-  },
-  "geography": {
-    "description": "worldwide (default) or a region code such as US, EU, UK",
-    "maxLength": 32,
-    "minLength": 1,
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "model_inference": {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  },
-  "model_training": {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  },
-  "modification": {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  },
-  "redistribution": {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  },
-  "sublicensing": {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  }
-}
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: a retry with the same key returns the proof already issued instead of a second one.",
+  "maxLength": 255,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  5. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
  6. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, closed-world); the description adds real behavior — the result is signed and ledger-committed, existing licenses are reused rather than re-checked, and a text summary accompanies the manifest. It omits whether repeat calls create new manifests (the schema's idempotency_key hints at retry semantics), whether issuing incurs cost, and what auth is required besides the deprecated api_key note in the schema.

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 when-to-use clause is front-loaded, followed by behavior and then a compact JSON example that earns its space by demonstrating the nested items shape. The single long sentence is dense but contains no filler; it could be broken into two sentences for easier scanning.

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 the return-value gap is covered, but for a 7-parameter tool with nested objects and 43% schema coverage the description leaves meaningful holes: the opaque `deliverable` object, `client`, retry/idempotency semantics, and what happens when an item's use cannot be documented. Adequate to make the call, but not complete for a ledger-committing mutation.

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 43%, and the description compensates only partially: the worked example clarifies the items shape and the license-by-SPDX-id usage, and the prose explains that each third-party input carries a resource_id, license, or asset. It says nothing about client, deliverable, idempotency_key, or when to use resource_id instead of asset, so several parameters remain undocumented in both places.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Issue a rights manifest') and states the scope precisely: checking every third-party input for its use, reusing held licenses, and returning a signed, ledger-committed manifest plus a text summary. It explicitly distinguishes itself from verify_rights_manifest, so an agent can separate the issuing tool from the checking tool without opening either schema.

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?

It gives a clear triggering condition ('Use when your principal wants signed proof for a whole deliverable') and names the follow-up alternative, verify_rights_manifest. It does not distinguish itself from the closest siblings such as issue_rights_receipt (per-item proof) or check_rights_batch, leaving the agent to infer when a whole-deliverable manifest is preferable to a lighter check.

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

All Rightshold toolsInspect
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