Skip to main content
Glama
YawLabs

@yawlabs/lemonsqueezy-mcp

by YawLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ls_update_license_key

DestructiveIdempotent

Update a license key's activation limit, expiry date, or disabled status to manage customer access, revoke access when needed, or restore disabled keys.

Instructions

Update a license key's activation limit, expiry date, or disabled status. Setting disabled: true, changing activationLimit, or changing expiresAt can revoke customer access and is treated as destructive (rate-limited and audited); disabled: false alone is not.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
disabledNoSet to true to disable this license key
expiresAtNoExpiry date (ISO 8601 format). Set to null to remove expiry.
licenseKeyIdYesThe license key ID to update
activationLimitNoMaximum number of activations allowed. Pass null for unlimited.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / activationLimit / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "minimum": 0,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / activationLimit / description
      Previous value: -"Maximum number of activations allowed (0 = unlimited)"New value: +"Maximum number of activations allowed. Pass null for unlimited."
    • removedInput schema / properties / activationLimit / maximum
      Removed value: -9007199254740991
    • removedInput schema / properties / activationLimit / minimum
      Removed value: -0
    • removedInput schema / properties / activationLimit / type
      Removed value: -"integer"
  2. First observedv0.10.10

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and readOnlyHint false, but the description adds substantial context beyond that: it identifies which specific field changes 'can revoke customer access', states that such changes are 'rate-limited and audited', and clarifies that 'disabled: false alone is not' destructive. This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance an agent needs and goes well beyond the structured hints.

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 filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and the affected fields; the second sentence adds the critical destructive-consequence nuance. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a four-parameter update tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: what can change, when it is destructive, rate limits and auditing. It does not describe the return value, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the strong schema descriptions.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by linking the three mutable parameters (disabled, activationLimit, expiresAt) to their real-world consequences and the non-destructive nature of disabled: false. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions, earning a 4.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Update a license key's activation limit, expiry date, or disabled status.' This names the exact fields involved and clearly differentiates the update action from pure read or create tools. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling ls_deactivate_license, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use the tool (to change these three license attributes) and provides important cautions about destructive operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like ls_deactivate_license, nor does it give exclusion criteria. The guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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