Rightshold

Look up an agent registration

registry_lookup

Read-onlyIdempotent

Call before trusting, paying or hiring an agent you have not worked with. Free, no key. Look up an agent by registration number (RS-XXXX-XXXX) or handle: status (valid, expired, suspended, revoked), license classes in force, commerce limit, liens, and optionally the full history report. Call with {"query": "RS-XXXX-XXXX", "history": true}.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "registry_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	RS number, handle or name
`history`	No	Include ledger history

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 20, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / history / description
```
Added value: +"Include ledger history"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / query / description
```
Added value: +"RS number, handle or name"
```
Changed1 schema field changedOct 14, 2026
- changedOutput schema / (root)
```
Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
```
First observedOct 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely useful non-schema context such as "Free, no key" (auth/cost) and enumerates the status states (valid, expired, suspended, revoked). It does not discuss rate limits or access constraints, but the added context is solid against the annotation coverage.

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?

It is compact and front-loads the usage trigger, then the free/no-key fact, then the resource and returned fields, ending with a concrete call example. No sentence is wasted, though the ordering puts behavior before purpose.

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 re-explained, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description still volunteers the field list and call format. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly appears to be missing.

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% so the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaning by giving the concrete RS-XXXX-XXXX identifier format and a sample invocation with history: true. This slightly improves on the schema's terse "RS number, handle or name" / "Include ledger history".

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("look up an agent" by registration number RS-XXXX-XXXX or handle) and enumerates the returned fields (status, license classes, commerce limit, liens, history), which is well beyond a tautology. It does not name or contrast any sibling (e.g. kya_lookup, check_license), so it stops short of the top score.

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?

The opening clause gives an explicit trigger: "Call before trusting, paying or hiring an agent you have not worked with." That is clear usage context, but no when-not condition or named alternative is provided, which keeps it from a 5.

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?