Skip to main content
Glama

Rightshold

by com.rightshold
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Verify a rights manifest

verify_rights_manifest
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a rights manifest's signature against Rightshold's issuer keys and confirm its hash was recorded on the ledger; with deliverable_sha256, also that it covers those exact bytes. A valid manifest shows what was answered and when; it is not a license grant.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
manifestYesManifest as issued
signatureYesIts signature
deliverable_sha256NoOptional: the SHA-256 of the deliverable you received

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
validYes
clearedYes
reasonsYes
environmentNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / manifest / description
      Added value: +"Manifest as issued"
    • addedInput schema / properties / signature / description
      Added value: +"Its signature"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "cleared": {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "environment": {
+    "enum": [
+      "live",
+      "sandbox",
+      "not_stated"
+    ]
+  },
+  "reasons": {
+    "items": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  "valid": {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  }
+}
    • addedOutput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "valid",
+  "cleared",
+  "reasons"
+]
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / deliverable_sha256
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: the SHA-256 of the deliverable you received",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it checks the signature against Rightshold issuer keys, confirms the ledger recording, optionally verifies byte coverage, and clarifies that a valid manifest shows provenance rather than license rights.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences with no wasted words. The core verification behavior is front-loaded, and the optional byte-coverage clause and non-license caveat follow efficiently.

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?

Given annotations cover safety, an output schema exists, and the schema documents parameters fully, the description supplies what remains: what is being verified, when the optional parameter changes behavior, and how to interpret a valid result. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining that deliverable_sha256 causes verification that the manifest covers those exact bytes, rather than merely naming it as an optional hash.

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 precise verb and resource: verifying a rights manifest's signature and ledger hash. It also distinguishes scope from license tools by explicitly stating 'it is not a license grant,' so an agent can tell it apart from check_license and issue_rights_manifest without opening schemas.

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 rather than explicitly guided: use it when validating a received manifest, and use deliverable_sha256 when byte-level coverage matters. It does not name alternatives such as ledger_verify or check_license, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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