Skip to main content
Glama
Labs64

Labs64/NetLicensing-MCP

netlicensing_create_license

Assign a new software license to a customer using a predefined template, specifying terms like duration, pricing, and usage limits for automated licensing management.

Instructions

Assign a new license to a customer from a license template.

Args: licensee_number: Customer to assign the license to license_template_number: Template defining type and rules number: Optional custom license number (auto-generated if empty) active: Whether the license is active immediately name: Display name (defaults from template if empty) start_date: ISO 8601 datetime — mandatory for TIMEVOLUME type price: License price (overrides template default, omit to inherit) currency: ISO 4217 currency code (overrides template default) time_volume: Duration value — mandatory for TIMEVOLUME type time_volume_period: DAY | WEEK | MONTH | YEAR (TIMEVOLUME type) quantity: Usage quota — mandatory for PayPerUse / NodeLocked models parent_feature: Parent feature — mandatory for TIMEVOLUME + Rental model hidden: Hide license from end customer in Shop (omit to inherit)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
licensee_numberYes
license_template_numberYes
numberNo
activeNo
nameNo
start_dateNo
priceNo
currencyNo
time_volumeNo
time_volume_periodNo
quantityNo
parent_featureNo
hiddenNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool creates/assigns a license, it doesn't cover important aspects like required permissions, whether this is an idempotent operation, what happens on conflicts, error handling, or rate limits. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with a clear opening sentence followed by detailed parameter explanations. While comprehensive, some parameter explanations could be more concise, and the opening sentence could better front-load key constraints about license types and mandatory fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (13 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations, the description does a good job with parameter semantics but falls short on behavioral context. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should provide more guidance on usage scenarios and error conditions for this complex creation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage and 13 parameters, the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It explains each parameter's purpose, when they're mandatory, default behaviors, and relationships to license types/templates. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Assign a new license') and target ('to a customer from a license template'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'netlicensing_update_license' or 'netlicensing_transfer_licenses', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'netlicensing_update_license' or 'netlicensing_transfer_licenses'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases beyond the basic function.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Labs64/NetLicensing-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server