LicenseGuard
OCI · GHCR.IO/RCCAOKI-WQ/LICENSE-GUARD:1.1.0 · 2 COMPONENTS
Check if a dependency's license obligates you, based on how you ship. npm, PyPI, Go.
Last scanned (21 hours ago)
Scores higher than 89% of OCI servers
Category Security
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically from public evidence about the published package, including repeated runs of it in an isolated sandbox, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Supply Chain Security0
- No malware scan is available for this kind of package: the supply-chain vendors we use do not cover it. This is a permanent gap in our coverage, not a finding about the package.Unverified
- Known CVEs could not be checked: this artifact ships no SBOM or dependency manifest, so there is no dependency list to read.Unverified
- Install-script risk not yet assessed.Unverified
- Dependency health could not be checked: this artifact ships no SBOM or dependency manifest, so there is no dependency list to read.Unverified
Provenance & Transparency45
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Provenance check failed: no build-provenance attestation is published. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- Clear OSI-approved license (Apache-2.0).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 75 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability66
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 812 tokens (~270/item across 3 items; 3 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management100
- No destabilizing schema changes in the last 30 days.Pass
Tool Coverage100
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
- Structured output schemas are declared (33% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 3 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 4 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Unverified: 1 category
A category scored 0 because we could not verify it: a data source with nothing on this package, evidence we could not reach, or a check we could not run. We only credit what we can confirm.
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 1 Nov 26 +1
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 31 Oct 26 −1
- Stability: pass → 0.97 functional
- 25 Oct 26 +1
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 24 Oct 26 −1
- Stability: pass → 0.97 functional
- 18 Oct 26 +1
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 16 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 90 to 93. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 27 days of observed history at the previous scan, 28 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 13 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 80 to 83. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 24 days of observed history at the previous scan, 25 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 12 Oct 26 −2
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 97 to 80.
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 4 Nov 2026 · Analysed oci/ghcr.io/rccaoki-wq/license-guard:1.1.0
Provenance No attestation
The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.
| Result | No attestation |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | oci |
| Reason | No attestation published |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
check_dependency_license Check one dependency for license obligations ~285
Determine whether adding or keeping a single open source dependency creates a legal obligation, given how this project ships. Call this BEFORE adding a new dependency to a project, and when auditing an existing one. A permissive result means no source-disclosure duty; a blocked result means the license obligates you and the dependency should be replaced or the shipping model reconsidered.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| distribution_model | string | yes | How the software incorporating this dependency reaches its users. This determines the answer: "saas" = users reach it over a network; "distributed-binary" = shipped as an app or binary; "on-prem-deli… |
| ecosystem | string | yes | Package registry the dependency comes from. |
| name | string | yes | Package name as written in the manifest, e.g. "express", "requests", "github.com/gin-gonic/gin", or "serde". |
| scope | string | – | Where the dependency sits. Use "dev", "build", or "test" for anything that does not end up in the shipped artifact — those carry no distribution obligation. Defaults to "runtime". |
| version | string | – | Exact version if known. Omit to use the latest published version, which may differ from what is installed. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| license | string|null | yes | – |
| obligations | array | yes | – |
| rationale | string | yes | – |
| reference | string | – | – |
| verdict | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
check_manifest_licenses Check a whole manifest ~259
Scan an entire dependency manifest and report every dependency whose license creates an obligation for this shipping model. Use when reviewing a project as a whole, preparing for due diligence, or after a large dependency change. Pass a package-lock.json when one exists: problematic licenses usually arrive as transitive dependencies rather than ones you added directly, and only a lockfile reveals those.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | string | yes | Full text of a lockfile or manifest. Accepted: package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, yarn.lock, go.sum, Cargo.lock, poetry.lock, uv.lock, package.json, requirements.txt, go.mod, Cargo.toml. The format i… |
| distribution_model | string | yes | How the software incorporating this dependency reaches its users. This determines the answer: "saas" = users reach it over a network; "distributed-binary" = shipped as an app or binary; "on-prem-deli… |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
explain_license Explain what a license requires ~151
Given an SPDX license identifier or expression, explain what it requires across every shipping model at once. Use when the question is about the license itself rather than a specific package — for example when comparing AGPL-3.0 against GPL-3.0 for a hosted service, or deciding what a project may safely depend on.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| license | string | yes | SPDX identifier or expression, e.g. "AGPL-3.0-only", "Apache-2.0", or "(MIT OR GPL-2.0-only)". |
| linkage | string | – | How the dependency is linked. Matters for LGPL-family licenses. Compiled languages such as Go and Rust normally link statically. Defaults to "dynamic". |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the LicenseGuard MCP server?
LicenseGuard runs locally as a container image, launched with docker run --rm -i ghcr.io/rccaoki-wq/license-guard:1.1.0. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 3 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
oci · ghcr.io/rccaoki-wq/license-guard:1.1.0
claude mcp add rccaoki-wq-license-guard -- docker run --rm -i ghcr.io/rccaoki-wq/license-guard:1.1.0
What is the LicenseGuard MCP server?
LicenseGuard is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.rccaoki-wq/license-guard. Check if a dependency's license obligates you, based on how you ship. npm, PyPI, Go. This page covers its container image (ghcr.io/rccaoki-wq/license-guard:1.1.0).
Is the LicenseGuard MCP server safe to use?
LicenseGuard scores 53 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the LicenseGuard MCP server expose?
LicenseGuard exposes 3 tools: check_dependency_license, check_manifest_licenses, explain_license. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 695 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the LicenseGuard MCP server still maintained?
LicenseGuard is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 4 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.
What licence is the LicenseGuard MCP server under?
LicenseGuard declares the Apache-2.0 licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.