apex_run_agent_license_policy_checkClassify supplied dependency licenses into PASS/REVIEW/BLOCK buckets using SPDX-style identifiers. DATA ONLY, read-only, no HMAC required; embedded policy table only, no registry lookups or network access. A release gate, not legal advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| policy | No | ||
| licenses | No | ||
| dependencies | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true is reinforced and significantly expanded: 'DATA ONLY, read-only, no HMAC required; embedded policy table only, no registry lookups or network access.' This tells the agent exactly what side effects are absent and what internal resources are used, exceeding the annotation's basic safety signal.
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?
Three tight sentences, each adding distinct value: function, safety/constraints, and purpose/caveat. No filler or repetition, front-loaded with the main verb. Exemplary conciseness.
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 tool with no output schema and moderate parameter count, the description gives a strong overall picture: what it does, when to use, and safety profile. However, the parameter ambiguity and lack of output shape prevent a perfect score, as an agent would still need to infer how to structure the licenses and dependencies inputs.
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 coverage is 0% and the description provides minimal compensation. It references 'supplied dependency licenses' and 'embedded policy table', which loosely maps to the licenses and policy parameters, but it does not explain the dependencies object, the relationship between licenses and dependencies, or the expected format of policy. Hard to invoke correctly without more guidance.
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 opens with a specific action ('Classify supplied dependency licenses') and clearly defines the three buckets (PASS/REVIEW/BLOCK), distinguishing it from sibling tools like release readiness gates or API contract diffs. It also uses SPDX-style identifiers, giving precise scope.
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 states this is 'a release gate' and clarifies it is 'DATA ONLY, read-only, no HMAC required', implying safe usage in CI/CD pipelines. It does not name explicit alternatives but the 'not legal advice' caveat sets expectations. Lacks a direct when-not-to-use vs sibling comparison.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions provide sufficient boundaries. Some run_* analytics tools (e.g., deflated_sharpe vs empyrical_metrics) could be conceptually confused, but their specific inputs and outputs minimize ambiguity.
All tools share the apex_ prefix, and the verb_noun pattern is consistent (get, query, run, submit). The 'agent_' subgroup within run tools introduces a minor irregularity, but it remains readily comprehensible.
With 24 tools, the server is on the heavy side, falling into the 16-25 range. Many run_* tools are similar in nature (pure calculations), but each appears to serve a specific purpose, so the count is borderline rather than excessive.
The server name implies a card store, yet the tool surface only supports reading and querying cards, with no create, update, or delete operations. This is a significant gap that prevents full lifecycle management, though the analytics side is fairly comprehensive.