LicenseGuard

Explain what a license requires

explain_license

Read-onlyIdempotent

Given an SPDX license identifier or expression, explain what it requires across every shipping model at once. Use when the question is about the license itself rather than a specific package — for example when comparing AGPL-3.0 against GPL-3.0 for a hosted service, or deciding what a project may safely depend on.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`license`	Yes	SPDX identifier or expression, e.g. "AGPL-3.0-only", "Apache-2.0", or "(MIT OR GPL-2.0-only)".
`linkage`	No	How the dependency is linked. Matters for LGPL-family licenses. Compiled languages such as Go and Rust normally link statically. Defaults to "dynamic".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`license`	Yes
`linkage`	No
`devScope`	Yes	The result when the dependency never reaches users (dev, build or test scope). Independent of the shipping model.
`byDistributionModel`	Yes	One row per way of shipping. This is where the same license diverges.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 21, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "byDistributionModel": {
+      "description": "One row per way of shipping. This is where the same license diverges.",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "model": {
+            "enum": [
+              "saas",
+              "distributed-binary",
+              "on-prem-delivery",
+              "internal-only",
+              "library-published"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "obligations": {
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "rationale": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "verdict": {
+            "enum": [
+              "allowed",
+              "review",
+              "blocked"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "model",
+          "verdict",
+          "obligations",
+          "rationale"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "devScope": {
+      "description": "The result when the dependency never reaches users (dev, build or test scope). Independent of the shipping model.",
+      "properties": {
+        "rationale": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "verdict": {
+          "enum": [
+            "allowed",
+            "review",
+            "blocked"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "verdict",
+        "rationale"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "license": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "linkage": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "license",
+    "byDistributionModel",
+    "devScope"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context: it covers all shipping models at once, implying a comprehensive output. The description does not contradict the annotations; it confirms a read-only, non-destructive operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then giving usage examples. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the input and output scope, the second explains when to use it. No wasted words.

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 tool is read-only, has a clear input schema with full coverage, and there is an output schema (mentioned in context), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it. The examples clarify complex license comparison scenarios. The description is complete for this complexity level.

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?

The schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (license with examples, linkage with explanation of why it matters and default). The description also implies the use of SPDX identifiers and mentions the concept of shipping models, which adds contextual meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3; the description adds a bit more context, so 4 is appropriate.

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?

The description specifies the tool's function clearly: 'Given an SPDX license identifier or expression, explain what it requires across every shipping model at once.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the license itself rather than a specific package, which aligns with the sibling names (check_dependency_license, check_manifest_licenses) that are package-specific.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use when the question is about the license itself rather than a specific package'. It also gives concrete examples like comparing AGPL-3.0 vs GPL-3.0 for a hosted service or deciding safe dependencies. This effectively conveys the intended use case and distinguishes from alternatives.

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

All LicenseGuard 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.