NPM Sentinel MCP

npmLicenseCompatibility

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check license compatibility among multiple npm packages to identify conflicts and ensure legal compliance.

Instructions

Check license compatibility between multiple packages

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`packages`	Yes	List of package names to check for license compatibility
`ignoreCache`	No	Force a fresh lookup, ignoring the cache

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`compatibility`	No
`licenseDetails`	No
`packagesAnalyzed`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.24.0Jul 28, 2026
Removedv1.23.0Jul 25, 2026
Changed2 schema fields changedv1.20.0Jul 13, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / ignoreCache
```
Added value: +{
+  "description": "Force a fresh lookup, ignoring the cache",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
First observedv1.0.0Aug 14, 2025

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral insight beyond the purpose, such as whether it returns a simple pass/fail or detailed conflicts. With annotations present, the description could still add value (e.g., 'returns license issues'), but it does not.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is not significantly front-loaded with critical context. It is efficient but could be slightly more informative.

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 tool's low complexity (2 parameters, one simple array) and the presence of an output schema (likely detailing return values), the description provides minimal but sufficient context. However, it lacks a hint about the output format, which the output schema may cover.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive names and descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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 'Check license compatibility between multiple packages' clearly states the action (check), the resource (license compatibility), and the scope (multiple packages). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like npmVersions or npmVulnerabilities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools cover different aspects, but the description does not mention scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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