Lotus Wisdom
Server Details
Contemplative reasoning with Lotus Sutra wisdom framework and ext-apps visualization.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- linxule/lotus-wisdom-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 28
- Server Listing
- Lotus Wisdom MCP Server
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'lotuswisdom' is the main contemplative reasoning tool with an elaborate workflow, while 'lotuswisdom_summary' provides a summary of the current journey. No overlap or confusion.
Both tools follow a consistent 'lotuswisdom_<suffix>' pattern. The main tool is named 'lotuswisdom' and the summary variant appends '_summary', making the relationship predictable.
With only 2 tools, the surface is quite lean. However, given the specialized nature of contemplative reasoning, this minimal set covers the core workflow and summary functionality. A few more tools could enhance completeness, but the count is still reasonable.
The main tool covers a wide range of contemplative phases through tags, and the summary tool provides retrieval. Missing a reset or history tool, but for the stated purpose, the set is largely complete and agents can work without dead ends.
Available Tools
2 toolslotuswisdomLotus WisdomARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Contemplative reasoning tool. Use for complex problems needing multi-perspective understanding, contradictions requiring integration, or questions holding their own wisdom.
Workflow: Always start with tag='begin' (returns framework). Then continue with contemplation tags. Do NOT output wisdom until status='WISDOM_READY'.
Tags: begin (FIRST - receives framework), then: open/engage/express (process), examine/reflect/verify/refine/complete (meta-cognitive), recognize/transform/integrate/transcend/embody (non-dual), upaya/expedient/direct/gradual/sudden (skillful-means), meditate (pause).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes | Current processing technique (wisdom-domain tag) | |
| content | Yes | Your contemplation for this step | |
| stepNumber | No | Current step number | |
| totalSteps | No | Estimated total steps needed (adjustable as you go) | |
| isMeditation | No | Whether this step is a meditative pause | |
| nextStepNeeded | No | Whether another step is needed | |
| previousJourney | No | Pass the journey string from the previous response to maintain journey tracking (e.g. "begin → open → examine"). | |
| meditationDuration | No | Duration for the meditation pause in seconds (1-10) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| steps | No | |
| prompt | No | |
| status | Yes | |
| journey | No | |
| welcome | No | |
| duration | No | |
| finalStep | No | |
| stepNumber | No | |
| totalSteps | No | |
| currentStep | No | |
| instruction | No | |
| finalJourney | No | |
| wisdomDomain | No | |
| contemplation | No | |
| domainJourney | No | |
| journeyLength | No | |
| processLength | No | |
| nextStepNeeded | No | |
| processComplete | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the required workflow and the constraint to wait for status='WISDOM_READY' before outputting wisdom. There is no contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, front-loading purpose and then using line breaks and bullet-like structure to present workflow, tags, and constraints. Every sentence is necessary and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, multiple tags, workflow) and presence of an output schema, the description covers all needed context: purpose, workflow, tag categories, and constraints. It is complete for usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping tags into categories and specifying the order (e.g., 'begin (FIRST)'). This provides semantic context beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as a 'Contemplative reasoning tool' for complex problems needing multi-perspective understanding, contradictions, or wisdom. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'lotuswisdom_summary'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a detailed workflow: always start with tag='begin', then use contemplation tags, and do not output wisdom until status='WISDOM_READY'. It also lists tag categories. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or what specific problems are unsuitable, so it loses a point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lotuswisdom_summaryLotus Wisdom Journey SummaryBRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get a summary of the current contemplative journey
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| previousJourney | No | Pass the journey string from a previous response to reconstruct the current journey summary. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| steps | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| domainJourney | Yes | |
| journeyLength | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds the behavioral detail that the parameter can be used to reconstruct a previous journey summary, which is useful beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal but sufficient given the presence of a full output schema and 100% schema coverage. However, it does not explain what a 'contemplative journey' entails, which may be ambiguous for an unfamiliar agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter description in the schema explicitly explains its role ('Pass the journey string from a previous response to reconstruct the current journey summary'). The tool description itself does not need to add further parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Get a summary' which is a specific verb+resource. It identifies the tool's primary function clearly. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'lotuswisdom' which may have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'lotuswisdom'. The description implies it is for summarizing the current journey, but does not specify scenarios where this is preferable or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.