lookup_licenseLook up an open-source license by its exact SPDX id (e.g. "MIT", "Apache-2.0", "GPL-3.0-only", "BSD-3-Clause"). Returns the full name, OSI/FSF approval, deprecation status, and reference URLs. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spdx_id | Yes | An SPDX license id, e.g. "Apache-2.0". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "spdx_id": "MIT"
+ },
+ {
+ "spdx_id": "Apache-2.0"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying return fields (full name, OSI/FSF approval, deprecation status, reference URLs) and noting no key required, which enriches the behavioral understanding.
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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then listing return details efficiently. Every sentence adds necessary context without redundancy.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter, robust annotations, and no output schema needed. The description fully covers what the tool does and returns, leaving no gaps in understanding.
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 100% and includes a description and examples for 'spdx_id'. The description does not add any new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Look up' and the resource 'open-source license by its exact SPDX id', with specific examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_licenses' (fuzzy) and 'get_license_text' (full text).
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 provides context for when to use (exact SPDX id) and notes 'Keyless' for no auth. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the specificity implies not for partial matches or full text retrieval.
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.