pkgintel-mcp

license_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluates an SPDX 2.x license expression against an allow-list: AND requires every identifier to be allowed, while OR requires at least one.

Instructions

Evaluate an SPDX 2.x expression against an allow-list of SPDX identifiers. AND requires every branch. OR requires one.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "expression": "<expression>",
      "allow": "<allow>"
    },
    "name": "license_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`allow`	Yes
`expression`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the evaluation rule (AND requires every branch, OR requires one), but says nothing about the result shape, how failures are reported, or how operators like WITH/+ are handled.

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 dense sentences with zero padding, and the purpose is front-loaded before the evaluation rule. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (2 required params, no output schema) and annotations carry the safety profile, but with no output schema the description should say what 'evaluate' returns (boolean pass/fail, list of failing identifiers?). That omission is the main remaining gap for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does partly: 'expression' is scoped to SPDX 2.x and 'allow' to SPDX identifiers, which rules out free-form or regex matching. But it gives no format examples, case-sensitivity, or whether 'allow' may itself contain expressions, leaving gaps.

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?

States a specific verb (evaluate) and resource (SPDX 2.x expression against an allow-list of SPDX identifiers), which is clearly distinct from the package/dependency-oriented siblings. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling or boundary, which keeps it 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 Guidelines2/5

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

The second sentence explains AND/OR evaluation semantics, not when to reach for this tool versus e.g. get_package or audit_lockfile. There is no stated context, prerequisite, or exclusion; an agent must infer that this is the license-compliance gate.

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

Deploy Server