DataNexus MCP

security_fetch_package_licence

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the SPDX licence identifier for an open source package version. Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent. package: Package name e.g. flask. Required. version: Exact version string e.g. 2.3.0. Required. ecosystem: One of PyPI, npm, Maven, Go, Cargo, NuGet, RubyGems. Required. Returns the SPDX licence identifier e.g. MIT, Apache-2.0, GPL-3.0. Use this to verify licence compatibility before including a dependency. Use security_fetch_package_vulnerabilities instead when checking for security issues not licences. Verified source: deps.dev (Google). 1-hour cache. If this tool's response does not serve the user's need, call report_feedback with feedback_type="agent_gap", tool_id="security_fetch_package_licence", intended_query="{what the user needed}", gap_description="{what was missing or wrong in the result}".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`package`	Yes	Package name e.g. requests. Required.
`version`	Yes	Package version e.g. 2.28.0. Required.
`ecosystem`	Yes	Package ecosystem: npm, pypi, cargo, go, maven, nuget. Required.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces these by stating 'Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent.' It adds additional context: 'Verified source: deps.dev (Google). 1-hour cache.' No contradiction.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose and parameters. It is concise but includes all necessary information. Could be slightly shorter, but still effective.

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 the rich annotations and output schema, the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, required parameters, usage guidance, alternative, caching, source verification, and feedback mechanism. No gaps.

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 value by giving concrete examples for package and version, listing ecosystem options, and explaining the return value. This exceeds what the schema provides.

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?

Clearly states it fetches the SPDX licence identifier for a given open source package version. Includes specific verb and resource, with examples and distinction from sibling tools like security_fetch_package_vulnerabilities.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (verify licence compatibility before including a dependency) and when to use an alternative (security_fetch_package_vulnerabilities for security issues). Also provides feedback instructions if the tool doesn't meet the user's need.

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

All DataNexus MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped into clear domain prefixes (compliance, domain, frontend_security, etc.) with distinct purposes. Minor overlap exists between frontend_security_detect_typosquatting and security_detect_typosquatting, but descriptions clarify the different scope.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case. Irregularities like 'fetch' vs 'audit' and two 'detect_typosquatting' tools exist, but overall naming is predictable within domains.

Tool Count3/5

55 tools is high for a single server given the breadth of domains. Some redundancy (e.g., two typosquatting tools) suggests possible trimming, but the count is justified by the wide coverage.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers key operations across domains like compliance, domain, security, legal, and nonprofit. Minor gaps exist, such as limited frontend audit beyond package.json and no general-purpose code scanning.

Resources

Need Help?