Skip to main content
Glama

find_license_violations

Identify dependency licenses in Java/Kotlin repositories, query Maven Central, and flag violations against allowed SPDX license IDs. Returns only violations and warnings.

Instructions

Check dependencies in the repo for license compliance.

Looks for pom.xml and build.gradle/build.gradle.kts in the repo root.
Queries Maven Central for each dependency's license.

Args:
    repo_name: The logical name of the indexed repository.
    allowed:   List of SPDX license IDs to allow
               (default: MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD-*, ISC, etc.).
    license_overrides: Maps "group:artifact" to a license SPDX string to
                       bypass Maven Central lookups (useful for testing or
                       when a known license is not in Maven Central metadata).

Returns:
    List of dicts [{group, artifact, version, license, status, reason}]
    where status is "OK", "VIOLATION", "WARNING", or "UNKNOWN".
    Only VIOLATION and WARNING items are returned (OK items filtered out).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repo_nameYes
allowedNo
license_overridesNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses files scanned, query source, and return format including filtering of OK items. Lacks details on error handling or performance.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Well-structured with summary, details, args, and returns. Slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with main purpose.

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?

Covers purpose, parameters, return values, and behavior. Missing error scenarios, but output schema handles status. Reasonably complete for a compliance check tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but description compensates fully: explains repo_name, allowed defaults, and license_overrides bypass mechanism, adding significant meaning beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Check dependencies in the repo for license compliance', providing a specific verb and resource. Distinct from sibling tools which focus on code analysis.

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?

Clear context on when to use (for license compliance) and what inputs are needed. No explicit alternatives mentioned, but no sibling tool serves the same purpose.

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/srinivasan-sundaresan95/orihime'

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