LicenseGuard
REMOTE · LICENSE-GUARD.RCC-AOKI.WORKERS.DEV · 2 COMPONENTS · SCANNED SEP 20
Check if a dependency's license obligates you, based on how you ship. npm, PyPI, Go.
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Endpoint Security63
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- No authorisation is required to call this server. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS enforcement could not be verified: the plaintext port answered with HTTP 405, which proves neither a plaintext path nor enforcement. View diagnostics → Unverified
- HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability87
- 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Pass
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 1548 tokens (~67/item across 23 items; 3 tools + 20 resources), lean.Pass
- 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 (100% 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 5 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
How do I install the LicenseGuard MCP server?
LicenseGuard is a hosted endpoint at https://license-guard.rcc-aoki.workers.dev/mcp, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
remote · license-guard.rcc-aoki.workers.dev
claude mcp add --transport http rccaoki-wq-license-guard 'https://license-guard.rcc-aoki.workers.dev/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"rccaoki-wq-license-guard": {
"url": "https://license-guard.rcc-aoki.workers.dev/mcp"
}
}
} {
"servers": {
"rccaoki-wq-license-guard": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://license-guard.rcc-aoki.workers.dev/mcp"
}
}
} [mcp_servers.rccaoki-wq-license-guard] url = "https://license-guard.rcc-aoki.workers.dev/mcp"
{
"$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
"mcp": {
"rccaoki-wq-license-guard": {
"type": "remote",
"url": "https://license-guard.rcc-aoki.workers.dev/mcp",
"enabled": true
}
}
} openclaw mcp add rccaoki-wq-license-guard --url 'https://license-guard.rcc-aoki.workers.dev/mcp' --transport streamable-http
mcp_servers:
rccaoki-wq-license-guard:
url: "https://license-guard.rcc-aoki.workers.dev/mcp" {
"McpServers": {
"rccaoki-wq-license-guard": {
"Transport": "http",
"Url": "https://license-guard.rcc-aoki.workers.dev/mcp"
}
}
} assistant mcp add rccaoki-wq-license-guard -t streamable-http -u 'https://license-guard.rcc-aoki.workers.dev/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"rccaoki-wq-license-guard": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://license-guard.rcc-aoki.workers.dev/mcp"
}
}
} The mcpServers block is a cross-client convention. Remote transports vary, so check your client's docs.
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.
- 19 Sept 26 +1
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 17 Sept 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.
- 15 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 83 to 87. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 25 days of observed history at the previous scan, 26 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 12 Sept 26 +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.
- 10 Sept 26 +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.
- 8 Sept 26 +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.
- 6 Sept 26 +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.
- 3 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 43 to 47. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 13 days of observed history at the previous scan, 14 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
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 20 Sept 2026 · Probed https://license-guard.rcc-aoki.workers.dev/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=rcc-aoki.workers.dev | CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 31 Aug 2026 | 29 Nov 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 59e87b705b3211a3fbe4f30b089a572522a |
| SANs: *.rcc-aoki.workers.dev, rcc-aoki.workers.dev | ||||||
| CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 4df3b15dd6c0784c507cd37b58e6f115 |
| CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 872165fc34b6e5fba8add5b3705fb53a |
| CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 6c8f1dc727c7117f7baf853ac980f9cd |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of license-guard.rcc-aoki.workers.dev. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| dev. | present | 60074 | 8 | Verified |
| workers.dev. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication No authorisation required
The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.
| Result | No authorisation required |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 200 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://license-guard.rcc-aoki.workers.dev/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://license-guard.rcc-aoki.workers.dev/mcp | Inconclusive | 405 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| assumption | object | – | – |
| 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 ~327
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, SBOM, or manifest. Accepted: package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, yarn.lock, go.sum, Cargo.lock, poetry.lock, uv.lock, Gemfile.lock, packages.lock.json, CycloneDX (JSON), SPDX… |
| 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… |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| distributionModel | string | – | – |
| ecosystem | string | – | – |
| findings | array | yes | – |
| limitations | array | yes | What this scan could not establish. Never empty when anything was left unresolved. Read it before treating a result as clean. |
| summary | object | yes | Counts by verdict. total is every dependency found, not only the ones that were resolved. |
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". |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| byDistributionModel | array | yes | One row per way of shipping. This is where the same license diverges. |
| devScope | object | yes | The result when the dependency never reaches users (dev, build or test scope). Independent of the shipping model. |
| license | string | yes | – |
| linkage | string | – | – |
No examples provided.
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 hosted endpoint (https://license-guard.rcc-aoki.workers.dev/mcp).
Is the LicenseGuard MCP server safe to use?
LicenseGuard scores 83 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 763 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the LicenseGuard MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to LicenseGuard without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
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.