Skip to main content
Glama
curtis-d-williams

mcp-license-header-guardian

by curtis-d-williams
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is singular and clearly defined.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    A single tool inherently has perfect naming consistency, as there are no other tools to compare against. The name 'check_license_header' follows a clear verb_noun pattern.

    Tool Count2/5

    One tool is too few for the server's apparent purpose of license header management, as it only provides a read-only check without any complementary tools for fixing, updating, or managing headers across files.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for license header management, lacking essential operations such as adding, removing, or modifying headers, which are necessary for a full workflow in this domain.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 1 of 1 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

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • 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

  • Behavior4/5

    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 effectively describes key traits: deterministic, network-free, read-only, and Tier 1 guardian (implying low-risk or foundational). This covers safety and operational context well, though it could add more on error handling or output format.

    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 highly concise and well-structured, with two sentences that front-load key information (deterministic, network-free, read-only) and then specify the action and criteria. Every sentence adds value without waste.

    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?

    Given the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and scope, but lacks details on the parameter and output. Since an output schema exists, explaining return values is less critical, but the parameter gap slightly reduces completeness.

    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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly mention the 'repo_path' parameter, but it implies the context ('.py files tracked by git'), which relates to repository paths. This adds some semantic meaning beyond the bare schema, though not directly naming or detailing the parameter.

    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 ('checks .py files tracked by git') and resources ('.py files'), and distinguishes its scope (first 5 lines for specific license headers). It explicitly defines the deterministic, network-free, read-only nature, making it highly specific and self-contained.

    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 context (checking license headers in Python files under git) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. Since there are no sibling tools, the lack of comparative guidance is less critical, but it still lacks detailed usage instructions.

    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

mcp-license-header-guardian MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-license-header-guardian MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/curtis-d-williams/mcp-license-header-guardian'

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