Classify software dependency licenses and flag packages that need commercial or legal review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| policy | No | commercial | |
| dependencies | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Structured License compatibility audit result | |
| meta | Yes | ||
| service | Yes | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes | Unique request identifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / meta / properties / next_actions / items / properties / checkout_pathAdded value: +{
+ "pattern": "^/try/",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / meta / properties / next_actions / items / properties / executes_automaticallyAdded value: +{
+ "const": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / properties / meta / properties / next_actions / items / properties / handoff_pathAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Free full contract and spend-capped command handoff; reading it does not execute or purchase the follow-up.",
+ "pattern": "^/catalog/",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / meta / properties / next_actions / items / properties / handoff_payment_requiredAdded value: +{
+ "const": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / properties / meta / properties / next_actions / items / properties / maximum_atomic_usdcAdded value: +{
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]*$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / meta / properties / next_actions / items / properties / sample_pathAdded value: +{
+ "pattern": "^/samples/",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / meta / properties / next_actions / items / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "service",
- "title",
- "reason",
- "method",
- "path",
- "price",
- "input_template",
- "use_output",
- "authorization_required"
-]New value: +[
+ "service",
+ "title",
+ "reason",
+ "method",
+ "path",
+ "price",
+ "input_template",
+ "use_output",
+ "handoff_path",
+ "checkout_path",
+ "sample_path",
+ "maximum_atomic_usdc",
+ "handoff_payment_required",
+ "executes_automatically",
+ "authorization_required"
+]Output schema / properties / meta / properties / next_actionsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional separately priced follow-up calls. Each action requires a new payment challenge and explicit buyer authorization.",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "authorization_required": {
+ "const": true,
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "input_template": {
+ "description": "Client-side template only: $request refers to the original input, $result to this response, and $json(...) serializes its argument. The server does not execute the follow-up.",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "method": {
+ "const": "POST",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "path": {
+ "pattern": "^/v1/",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "price": {
+ "pattern": "^\\$[0-9]+",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "reason": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "service": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "use_output": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "service",
+ "title",
+ "reason",
+ "method",
+ "path",
+ "price",
+ "input_template",
+ "use_output",
+ "authorization_required"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / properties / meta / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "duration_ms",
- "cached",
- "sources",
- "warnings"
-]New value: +[
+ "duration_ms",
+ "cached",
+ "sources",
+ "warnings",
+ "next_actions"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the tool's core behavior (classifying licenses, flagging review) but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as how the policy parameter affects classification, what data sources are used, or any edge cases. With annotations present, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It captures the essential purpose and output intent efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, annotations, and a moderately simple input schema, the description omits critical information about the 'policy' parameter, which is central to the tool's behavior. It does not clarify what 'commercial' vs 'permissive' means or how it influences the flagging. The tool is simple but the missing policy explanation makes the description incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining parameters. It does not mention 'policy' or explain its enum values ('permissive' vs 'commercial'), nor does it detail the structure of the 'dependencies' array beyond implying the domain. The description adds minimal meaning to the parameters, leaving the policy semantics entirely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Classify software dependency licenses and flag packages that need commercial or legal review.' It uses specific verbs ('classify', 'flag') and identifies the resource (software dependency licenses). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'developer.dependency-audit', which likely handles broader dependency auditing, by focusing on license compliance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a clear use case: when you need to classify dependency licenses and identify packages needing review. It provides context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name the sibling 'developer.dependency-audit' as the alternative for broader audits. Thus, it has clear context but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are grouped into clear domain prefixes (crypto, data, developer, document, research, web) and each tool name describes a specific function; however, a few umbrella tools like web.full-audit and data.contract overlap with their more targeted counterparts, creating minor ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: a domain prefix, a dot, and a hyphenated lowercase compound name (e.g., crypto.base-block-inspect, web.seo-audit). This makes naming predictable and easy to scan.
At 63 tools, the surface area is very large and exceeds the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. While the tools are organized into six domains, the sheer number makes it difficult for an agent to select efficiently, and some tools are bundled combinations of others.
Each domain offers a thorough set of operations: crypto covers address, account, block, contract, events, gas, and transaction inspection; data covers cleaning, conversion, schema, and validation; developer covers code review, dependency/license audits, and test generation; research covers SEC, OFAC, GLEIF, and USAspending; web covers extraction, SEO, security, and performance. No obvious dead ends exist for the read-only/inspection purpose.