Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Open-source licence risk checks for AI coding agents and dependency trees.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

Available Tools

1 tool
check_software_licenseAInspect

Check a software package and its dependency tree for open-source licence risk before adding it to a project.

ecosystem examples: pypi, npm, maven, cargo

use_case examples: hosted-saas distributed-closed-source

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
packageYes
versionYes
use_caseNohosted-saas
ecosystemYes

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-style check and mentions dependency-tree scope, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether network calls are involved, what output is returned, or what 'risk' means in practice.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence, followed by compact example lists that directly support parameter usage. There is no filler or redundant information.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, important context is missing: there is no description of return values, no side-effect or safety disclosure, and use_case semantics are only hinted at through examples. An agent might invoke it, but it would not know what result to expect or how to interpret the output.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by listing ecosystem examples (pypi, npm, maven, cargo) and use_case examples (hosted-saas, distributed-closed-source), but it does not explain the meaning of use_case or specify version format, leaving some parameters underspecified.

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 states a specific action ('Check') applied to a concrete resource ('a software package and its dependency tree') for a clear objective ('open-source licence risk before adding it to a project'). Even without siblings, the tool's function is unmistakable.

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 explicitly frames when to use the tool: 'before adding it to a project.' It also provides ecosystem and use_case examples that guide input selection. With no sibling tools, absence of alternative routing guidance is acceptable.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observedcheck_software_license

Frequently Asked Questions

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's purpose is unambiguous.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name 'check_software_license' follows a clear verb_noun pattern and is consistent with common CLI conventions.

Tool Count3/5

One tool feels thin for a server, but the narrow purpose of license checking may justify a single focused operation. It sits at the borderline of appropriateness.

Completeness4/5

The tool covers the core license-checking workflow including dependency trees, but lacks ancillary capabilities like policy configuration or report generation. Minor gaps exist but the primary use case is addressed.

Resources