Skip to main content
Glama
EgorKluch

LAML MCP Server

by EgorKluch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

LAML MCP Server

Parse and validate LAML (YAML-based markup language) documents through Model Context Protocol.

What it does

  • Load LAML documents from filesystem via MCP protocol

  • Integrate with Cursor for LAML file access

Related MCP server: Amazon Q Custom Prompt MCP Server

Quick Start

  1. Install and build:

npm install
npm run build

  1. Configure MCP server in Cursor:

Option A: Global MCP settings (recommended) Create or edit ~/.cursor/mcp_settings.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "laml-mcp-server": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/absolute/path/to/your/project/dist/index.js"]
    }
  }
}

Option B: Project-specific settings Add to your Cursor workspace settings:

{
  "mcp": {
    "servers": {
      "laml-mcp-server": {
        "command": "node",
        "args": ["/absolute/path/to/your/project/dist/index.js"]
      }
    }
  }
}

  1. Activate server: In Cursor settings, toggle MCP off/on or restart Cursor

Usage Examples

Load LAML Document

# Example LAML document
$meta:
  name: 'myDocument'
  purpose: "Document description"
  version: 1.0

content:
  title: 'documentTitle'
  description: "Human readable description"
  enabled: true

Load File Content

The server returns raw file content as string for further processing by your application.

Available Operations

  • loadLaml: Load LAML document from file path

Requirements

  • Node.js 18+

  • Cursor with MCP support

Available Tools

1 tool
loadLamlC

Load LAML document from file path

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectYesAbsolute path to the project directory
pathYesAbsolute path to LAML document file

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions loading from a file path but fails to describe critical behaviors such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the file doesn't exist or is malformed), performance characteristics, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There is no wasted verbiage, achieving optimal conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with two required parameters. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or operational constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in complex scenarios. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these missing behavioral aspects.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('project' and 'path') clearly documented in the schema as absolute paths. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying file-based loading, which is already inferred from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Load') and resource ('LAML document from file path'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies the source as a file path, which distinguishes it from potential alternatives like loading from a URL or database. However, without sibling tools for comparison, the differentiation aspect is inherently limited.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or constraints. It merely states what the tool does without context for its application. With no sibling tools mentioned, there's no explicit comparison, but the lack of any usage context leaves the agent without operational guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool updatev1.0.0
    • First observedloadLaml
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly distinct as it is the sole operation available.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name 'loadLaml' uses a consistent verb_noun pattern (load + Laml). Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect with no deviations to assess.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool is too few for a server's purpose, as it severely limits functionality and suggests an incomplete or trivial implementation. This is a borderline case leaning towards inadequacy.

Completeness1/5

The server is severely incomplete for handling LAML documents; it only loads documents without any operations for creating, updating, deleting, querying, or validating them, leaving significant gaps in the domain coverage.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers