Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@yawlabs/lemonsqueezy-mcp

@yawlabs/lemonsqueezy-mcp

by YawLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ls_activate_license

Activate a license key for a named instance using the key itself for authentication. No API key needed.

Instructions

Activate a license key for an instance. Does not require an API key — uses the license key itself for auth.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "licenseKey": "<licenseKey>",
      "instanceName": "<instanceName>"
    },
    "name": "ls_activate_license"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
licenseKeyYesThe license key to activate
instanceNameYesA name for this activation instance (e.g. machine name, user identifier)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.10.10

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate a write operation with potential side effects. The description adds the auth detail but does not explain activation effects (e.g., instance creation, idempotency).

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous content. Front-loaded with the core action and auth note.

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?

No output schema or return behavior described. For a mutation tool, more context on success/failure or side effects would improve completeness, but it's adequate for a simple activation.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra 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 clearly states the verb (activate) and resource (license key for an instance). It distinguishes from siblings like 'deactivate' and 'validate'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

States that no API key is needed, which clarifies a key usage context. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives but the sibling list provides implicit differentiation.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools