Skip to main content
Glama

HALOWERK: Resolve package licences and classify them for commercial use: which force discl

license_check
Read-only

Classify package licenses by commercial obligations: permissive (attribution), copyleft (disclosure), network copyleft (SaaS), or unknown. Triage legal risk for closed products and services.

Instructions

Resolve package licences and classify them for commercial use: which force disclosure, which only need attribution, and which are unknown.

Kostenpflichtig: 0.002 USDC je Aufruf. Bezahlt per x402 auf Base, ohne Konto. Hoechstens 0.002 USDC je Aufruf.

Looks up the declared licence of each package through deps.dev and sorts the result by the only question that matters for a closed, sold product: what does this licence demand. Permissive licences need attribution. Weak copyleft affects changes to the library itself. Strong copyleft can force disclosure of the whole work on distribution. Network copyleft such as AGPL and SSPL bites on operating the software as a service, which is the sharpest case for a paid API. Multi-licence expressions are handled by their operator — with OR the mildest applies because you may choose, with AND the strictest does. Packages whose licence is undeclared or outside the table are reported as unknown instead of assumed harmless. This is a classification to triage with, not legal advice, and the licence deps.dev records is what the package declared, which is not always what its files say. Preis 0.002 USDC je Aufruf, Abrechnung über x402.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usageNoHow you use the code. saas = operated as a network service, which is what triggers AGPL.
packagesYesPackages to check.
ecosystemNoDefault ecosystem.
Behavior5/5

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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond annotations: how multi-license expressions are handled (AND/OR), unknown licenses are reported as 'unknown' rather than harmless, the data source (deps.dev) and its limitation, and a disclaimer that it is not legal advice. It aligns with readOnlyHint/openWorldHint and adds substantive context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is informative but verbose, with redundant pricing statements (mentioned twice in German) and a mixed English/German structure. The opening purpose is front-loaded, but the repetition and extra pricing details detract from conciseness.

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?

The description provides extensive behavioral context and limitations, covering classification logic, unknown handling, and disclaimers. However, with no output schema, it does not explicitly describe the return format or structure, leaving a moderate gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description indirectly references the 'usage' parameter by explaining network copyleft (AGPL) implications, but does not add syntax-level detail beyond the schema for packages or ecosystem. No significant added meaning.

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 function: 'Resolve package licences and classify them for commercial use' with specific categories (disclosure, attribution, unknown). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cve_check and tls_chain, which address different concerns.

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?

The description provides strong context for when to use the tool: for a 'closed, sold product' and evaluating what each license demands. It explains scenarios (permissive, weak copyleft, strong copyleft, network copyleft) but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives to other tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/halowerk/halowerk-mcp'

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