Scancode License Analysis Tool for MCP

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes: analyze_license_file examines a specific file's licenses, compare_license_compatibility checks two licenses, get_license_clause_summary details a single license, and list_high_risk_files and summarize_license_risks both identify high-risk files but with slightly different focuses (listing vs. summarizing). The overlap between list_high_risk_files and summarize_license_risks could cause minor confusion, but descriptions clarify their nuances.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent pattern with the prefix 'mcp_ScancodeMCP_' and use snake_case for the action-object structure (e.g., analyze_license_file, compare_license_compatibility). This uniformity makes the set predictable and easy to navigate, with no deviations in naming conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for license analysis, covering key operations like analysis, comparison, summarization, and risk identification. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, making the count appropriate for the domain's complexity and typical use cases.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core aspects of license analysis, including detailed examination, compatibility checks, and risk assessment. A minor gap exists in lacking tools for broader actions like batch processing multiple files or managing license databases, but agents can work around this with the provided tools for most workflows.
Average 3.4/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool provides a 'verdict and explanation', which implies read-only analysis, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires network access, has rate limits, what format the explanation takes, or if it's authoritative for legal decisions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.
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?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded in a single sentence. Every word earns its place: 'Legal compatibility verdict and explanation' defines the output, 'for two license types' specifies the input scope, and the parenthetical example clarifies usage without redundancy. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.
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 moderate complexity (comparing legal licenses), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format, reliability, or integration context. It meets the bare minimum for a read-only analysis tool but doesn't fully compensate for missing structured data.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the parameters represent license types for comparison, but doesn't provide additional semantics like valid license formats, case sensitivity, or handling of aliases. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 tool's purpose: to provide a 'legal compatibility verdict and explanation for two license types'. It specifies the verb ('compare'), resource ('license compatibility'), and scope ('two license types'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_license_file' or 'summarize_license_risks', which prevents 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where this comparison is appropriate versus other license analysis tools. The example 'e.g., MIT vs GPLv3' hints at usage but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It mentions the output type ('legal summary') but doesn't specify format, depth, or limitations (e.g., coverage of known licenses, handling of unknown licenses, or potential errors). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.
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?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying the action ('Clause-by-clause legal summary'), target ('of a license'), and key aspects ('obligations, risks, compatibility, etc.'). No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that produces legal summaries. It doesn't explain what the summary includes, its format, or how to interpret results. For a tool with potential complexity in legal analysis, more context is needed to understand its output and limitations.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'licenseName' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., examples of license names or handling of edge cases). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.
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 tool's purpose: 'Clause-by-clause legal summary of a license' with specific aspects like 'obligations, risks, compatibility, etc.' It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on detailed clause analysis rather than file analysis, comparison, or risk listing. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools for differentiation.
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 usage when a detailed legal breakdown of a license is needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'summarize_license_risks' or 'compare_license_compatibility'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists files and provides summaries, but does not cover critical aspects like whether it requires prior analysis, how it determines 'high-risk/problematic' licenses, output format, or potential side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Lists all files with high-risk/problematic licenses') and adds the summary aspect. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely produces complex data (license risk summaries), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output structure, how risks are assessed, or dependencies on other tools. For a risk analysis tool with rich context needs, this minimal description does not provide sufficient completeness for effective agent use.
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?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, but it's a dummy parameter ('random_string') for a no-parameter tool. The description correctly implies no meaningful parameters are needed by not mentioning any, adding value beyond the schema by clarifying the tool's parameter-free nature. Baseline is 3 for high schema coverage, but the description compensates by aligning with the tool's actual usage.
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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Lists all files with high-risk/problematic licenses' and 'provides a legal risk summary for each license type'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_high_risk_files' by adding the summary component. It explicitly identifies the resource (files with problematic licenses) and the action (list and summarize).
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. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or compare to sibling tools like 'list_high_risk_files' (which may only list without summarizing) or 'analyze_license_file' (which might focus on individual files). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'clause-by-clause legal analysis' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as computational intensity, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid file paths. For a tool with no annotations and three parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Clause-by-clause legal analysis') and lists key outputs. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 complexity (legal analysis with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose but misses behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps for effective agent use.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'linesToRead' affects analysis or the purpose of 'scannedDataBasePath'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 specific action ('clause-by-clause legal analysis') and resource ('all licenses detected in a file'), with explicit outputs ('obligations, risks, and compatibility'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'compare_license_compatibility' and 'summarize_license_risks' by focusing on detailed file-level analysis rather than comparison or summary.
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 usage for detailed license analysis in files, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_license_clause_summary' or 'list_high_risk_files'. No guidance is provided on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'legal warning for each' as a behavioral trait, but does not disclose other important aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, data sources, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Lists all files with...') and includes the key detail about legal warnings. There is no wasted text, and it effectively communicates the tool's purpose in a compact form.
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 complexity (listing files with risk filtering) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers what the tool does and includes an output feature (legal warnings), but does not address return format, pagination, or error cases. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps for a tool with no structured support.
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?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% coverage, but it's a dummy parameter ('random_string') for no-parameter tools. The description correctly indicates no meaningful parameters by not mentioning any, adding value beyond the schema by implying the tool operates without user inputs. This compensates well for the dummy parameter setup.
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 specific action ('Lists all files') with precise criteria ('with copyleft, unknown, or commercial-unfriendly licenses') and includes an additional output feature ('with a legal warning for each'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'analyze_license_file' or 'summarize_license_risks' by focusing on file listing with risk filtering rather than analysis or summarization.
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 usage when identifying high-risk files based on license types, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'summarize_license_risks' or provide exclusions. It offers some context but lacks clear guidance on prerequisites or specific scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![scancodeMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bivex/scancodeMCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bivex/scancodeMCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![scancodeMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bivex/scancodeMCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bivex/scancodeMCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/bivex/scancodeMCP'

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