search_licensesSearch the SPDX license list by keyword (matches the id or name), e.g. "GPL", "creative commons", "mozilla". Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (1-100, default 25). | |
| query | Yes | Keyword to search. | |
| osi_only | No | Only OSI-approved licenses (default false). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "GPL"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 10,
+ "osi_only": true,
+ "query": "creative commons"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so description adds limited value. Mentions 'Keyless' which is a useful behavioral trait not captured in annotations.
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?
Two concise sentences with an example, no fluff. Efficiently communicates core functionality.
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 search tool with no output schema, the description is adequate. Could mention what the response contains (e.g., license objects) but not strictly necessary given the tool's straightforward nature.
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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. Description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond schema, so baseline 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?
Description clearly states the tool searches the SPDX license list by keyword, matching id or name. Verb 'search' and resource 'SPDX license list' are specific, distinguishing it from siblings like 'lookup_license' which likely retrieves a single license.
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?
Provides concrete examples of keywords ('GPL', 'creative commons', 'mozilla') and notes keyless access, aiding usage. Does not explicitly state when not to use vs. alternatives, but context is sufficient.
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.