get_license_textGet the full license text for a single SPDX license id (returns standard text + cross-references).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Full license name | |
| seeAlso | No | Cross-reference URLs | |
| licenseId | Yes | SPDX license identifier | |
| licenseText | Yes | Full license text | |
| standardLicenseHeader | No | Standard license header if available |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "GPL-3.0-or-later"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "licenseId": {
+ "description": "SPDX license identifier",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "licenseText": {
+ "description": "Full license text",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Full license name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "seeAlso": {
+ "description": "Cross-reference URLs",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "standardLicenseHeader": {
+ "description": "Standard license header if available",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "licenseId",
+ "name",
+ "licenseText"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it 'returns standard text + cross-references', which is useful context about the output. It does not contradict annotations, but it also doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling or rate limits. Given annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds modest value.
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, information-dense sentence. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every part earns its place: 'full license text', 'single SPDX license id', and 'standard text + cross-references'. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly indicates the tool's function and what it returns, and the annotations cover safety semantics. It doesn't discuss validation or error cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, this is not a critical gap.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description clarifies the 'id' parameter as an 'SPDX license id'. This gives semantic meaning beyond the bare type string, and the schema example 'GPL-3.0-or-later' reinforces the format. For a single parameter, this is sufficient compensation for the lack of schema description.
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 purpose: 'Get the full license text for a single SPDX license id'. It uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource (full license text), and narrows to a single SPDX license id. It also distinguishes from sibling 'get_license' by emphasizing 'full license text' and 'standard text + cross-references'.
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 usage when you need the full text of a license by providing a single SPDX license id. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over the closely named sibling 'get_license' or list_licenses, nor does it exclude any scenarios. The guidance is implied but not directly contrasted with alternatives.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple 'ask_pipeworx' variants, several company analysis tools, and multiple prediction market tools. The set is large and not well-disambiguated, leading to potential confusion.
Naming conventions are mixed, with snake_case ('get_license'), camelCase ('ai_visibility_check'), and prefix-based ('pipeworx_*', 'polymarket_*'). No consistent pattern across the tool set.
35 tools is excessive for a server named 'Spdx License', which implies a focused license management tool. The actual number is more appropriate for a general data platform, but mismatched with the server name.
For the implied SPDX license domain, only a few basic tools exist (list, get, search). Missing crucial features like create, update, delete, or compare licenses. The surface is severely incomplete for the stated purpose.