license-compliance-mcp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| check-licensesA | Scan a project's npm dependencies for license compliance issues. Checks all installed packages against a policy (permissive, weak-copyleft, copyleft, or a custom SPDX expression). Returns a detailed markdown report with any violations, warnings, and dependency chains. |
| explain-licenseA | Explain what a specific SPDX license means in plain language. Covers permissions, conditions, limitations, compatibility with proprietary/open-source/SaaS use, and common gotchas. Supports 15 major licenses plus deprecated SPDX forms. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools are completely distinct: one scans npm dependencies for compliance, the other explains SPDX licenses. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tools follow a verb_noun pattern with hyphenation, but 'check-licenses' uses plural while 'explain-license' uses singular. This minor inconsistency is slightly noticeable but does not hinder readability.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for its apparent scope. The tools are focused and useful, but the count is on the borderline of what is considered reasonable for a utility server.
The server covers scanning and explaining, but lacks tools for managing the compliance policy (e.g., setting or updating policy). This is a notable operational gap for a license compliance workflow.