# LicenseGuard (oci · ghcr.io/rccaoki-wq/license-guard:1.1.0)

Check if a dependency's license obligates you, based on how you ship. npm, PyPI, Go.

- Trust score: 53/100 (low)
- Change this week: +3
- Registry status: active
- Liveness: live
- Owner verified: no
- Last scored: 2026-09-20

## Components

- remote · `license-guard.rcc-aoki.workers.dev`: 83/100, [markdown](https://verifymcp.io/servers/rccaoki-wq-license-guard/license-guard.md), [page](https://verifymcp.io/servers/rccaoki-wq-license-guard/license-guard)
- oci · `ghcr.io/rccaoki-wq/license-guard:1.1.0`: 53/100 (this document), [markdown](https://verifymcp.io/servers/rccaoki-wq-license-guard/ghcr-io-rccaoki-wq-license-guard-1-1-0.md), [page](https://verifymcp.io/servers/rccaoki-wq-license-guard/ghcr-io-rccaoki-wq-license-guard-1-1-0)

## Channel facts

- Registry: `oci`
- Package: `ghcr.io/rccaoki-wq/license-guard:1.1.0`
- Transport: `stdio`

## Trust breakdown

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. Scores are 0–100 per category. Scoring method: https://verifymcp.io/docs/scoring (what has changed: https://verifymcp.io/docs/scoring/changelog)

Scored 2026-09-20.

- **Supply Chain Security**: 0/100
  - Malware scan not yet available for this package.
  - Known CVEs could not be checked: this artifact ships no SBOM, so there is no dependency list to read. Publishing one would let us assess it.
  - Install-script risk not yet assessed.
  - Dependency health could not be checked: this artifact ships no SBOM, so there is no dependency list to read. Publishing one would let us assess it.
- **Provenance & Transparency**: 45/100
  - Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL.
  - Provenance check failed: no build-provenance attestation is published.
  - Clear OSI-approved license (Apache-2.0).
  - Actively maintained (last published 30 days ago).
  - Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository.
- **Schema Quality & AI Usability**: 66/100
  - AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).
  - 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.
  - Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples.
- **Stability & Change Management**: 100/100
  - No destabilizing schema changes in the last 30 days.
- **Tool Coverage**: 100/100
  - 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).
  - 100% of tool parameters carry a description.
  - Structured output schemas are declared (33% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.
- **Tool Safety**: 100/100
  - No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.
  - We read all 3 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.
  - An AI judge read all 4 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.
- **Capabilities**: 100/100
  - Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.

**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.

## Install

### 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.

### Claude

```bash
claude mcp add rccaoki-wq-license-guard -- docker run --rm -i ghcr.io/rccaoki-wq/license-guard:1.1.0
```

### Cursor

```json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "rccaoki-wq-license-guard": {
      "command": "docker",
      "args": [
        "run",
        "--rm",
        "-i",
        "ghcr.io/rccaoki-wq/license-guard:1.1.0"
      ]
    }
  }
}
```

### VS Code

```json
{
  "servers": {
    "rccaoki-wq-license-guard": {
      "command": "docker",
      "args": [
        "run",
        "--rm",
        "-i",
        "ghcr.io/rccaoki-wq/license-guard:1.1.0"
      ]
    }
  }
}
```

### Codex

```bash
codex mcp add rccaoki-wq-license-guard -- docker run --rm -i ghcr.io/rccaoki-wq/license-guard:1.1.0
```

### opencode

```json
{
  "$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
  "mcp": {
    "rccaoki-wq-license-guard": {
      "type": "local",
      "command": [
        "docker",
        "run",
        "--rm",
        "-i",
        "ghcr.io/rccaoki-wq/license-guard:1.1.0"
      ],
      "enabled": true
    }
  }
}
```

### Hermes

```yaml
mcp_servers:
  rccaoki-wq-license-guard:
    command: "docker"
    args: ["run", "--rm", "-i", "ghcr.io/rccaoki-wq/license-guard:1.1.0"]
```

### Netclaw

```json
{
  "McpServers": {
    "rccaoki-wq-license-guard": {
      "Transport": "stdio",
      "Command": "docker",
      "Arguments": [
        "run",
        "--rm",
        "-i",
        "ghcr.io/rccaoki-wq/license-guard:1.1.0"
      ]
    }
  }
}
```

### Other

```json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "rccaoki-wq-license-guard": {
      "command": "docker",
      "args": [
        "run",
        "--rm",
        "-i",
        "ghcr.io/rccaoki-wq/license-guard:1.1.0"
      ]
    }
  }
}
```

## Changelog

Every change recorded for this component, newest first. Days that predate change tracking, or that we cannot explain, say so: "we were watching and nothing happened" and "we were not watching" are different claims.

### 2026-09-20 (score 53, +1)

- [security] Stability: 0.97 → pass

### 2026-09-18 (score 52, +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.

### 2026-09-15 (score 51, +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.

### 2026-09-13 (score 50, +1)

No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 73 to 77. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 22 days of observed history at the previous scan, 23 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

### 2026-09-11 (score 49, +1)

No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 67 to 70. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 20 days of observed history at the previous scan, 21 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

### 2026-09-09 (score 48, +1)

No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 60 to 63. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 18 days of observed history at the previous scan, 19 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

### 2026-09-07 (score 47, +1)

No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 53 to 57. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 16 days of observed history at the previous scan, 17 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

### 2026-09-05 (score 46, +1)

No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 47 to 50. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 14 days of observed history at the previous scan, 15 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

## MCP tools (3)

### `check_dependency_license` (~285 tokens)

Check one dependency for license obligations

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.

Input parameters:

- `distribution_model` (string, required): 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, required): Package registry the dependency comes from.
- `name` (string, required): 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.

Output parameters:

- `license` (string|null)
- `obligations` (array)
- `rationale` (string)
- `reference` (string)
- `verdict` (string)

### `check_manifest_licenses` (~259 tokens)

Check a whole manifest

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.

Input parameters:

- `content` (string, required): 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, required): 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…

### `explain_license` (~151 tokens)

Explain what a license requires

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.

Input parameters:

- `license` (string, required): 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".

## Diagnostics

Captured diagnostic sections: Provenance. The full working is on the page: https://verifymcp.io/servers/rccaoki-wq-license-guard/ghcr-io-rccaoki-wq-license-guard-1-1-0#diagnostics

## Score history

- 2026-09-20: 53
- 2026-09-19: 52
- 2026-09-18: 52
- 2026-09-17: 51
- 2026-09-16: 51
- 2026-09-15: 51
- 2026-09-14: 50
- 2026-09-13: 50
- 2026-09-12: 49
- 2026-09-11: 49
- 2026-09-10: 48
- 2026-09-09: 48
- 2026-09-08: 47
- 2026-09-07: 47
- 2026-09-06: 46
- 2026-09-05: 46
- 2026-09-04: 45
- 2026-09-03: 45
- 2026-09-02: 44
- 2026-09-01: 44
- 2026-08-31: 44
- 2026-08-30: 43
- 2026-08-29: 43
- 2026-08-28: 42
- 2026-08-27: 39
- 2026-08-26: 39
- 2026-08-25: 37
- 2026-08-24: 37
- 2026-08-23: 37
- 2026-08-22: 37

## Common questions

### 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 20 September 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.

## Links

- Repository: https://github.com/rccaoki-wq/license-guard
- Website: https://license-guard.rcc-aoki.workers.dev/
- Changelog RSS feed: https://verifymcp.io/servers/rccaoki-wq-license-guard/ghcr-io-rccaoki-wq-license-guard-1-1-0.xml
- Changelog JSON feed: https://verifymcp.io/servers/rccaoki-wq-license-guard/ghcr-io-rccaoki-wq-license-guard-1-1-0.json
- HTML version of this page: https://verifymcp.io/servers/rccaoki-wq-license-guard/ghcr-io-rccaoki-wq-license-guard-1-1-0