Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
GeiserX

lynxprompt-mcp

by GeiserX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Remote

Qué obtienes

Tipo

Para qué sirve

URI de MCP / ID de herramienta

Recursos

Navegar por planos, jerarquías e información de usuario (solo lectura)

lynxprompt://blueprintslynxprompt://blueprint/{id}lynxprompt://hierarchieslynxprompt://hierarchy/{id}lynxprompt://user

Herramientas

Crear, actualizar, eliminar planos y gestionar jerarquías

search_blueprintscreate_blueprintupdate_blueprintdelete_blueprintcreate_hierarchydelete_hierarchy

Todo se expone a través de un único endpoint JSON-RPC (/mcp). Los LLMs / Agentes pueden: initialize -> readResource -> listTools -> callTool ... y así sucesivamente.

Related MCP server: mcp-openapi-schema

Inicio rápido (Docker Compose)

services:
  lynxprompt-mcp:
    image: drumsergio/lynxprompt-mcp:latest
    ports:
      - "127.0.0.1:8080:8080"
    environment:
      - LYNXPROMPT_URL=https://lynxprompt.com
      - LYNXPROMPT_TOKEN=lp_xxx

Nota de seguridad: El transporte HTTP escucha en 127.0.0.1:8080 por defecto. Si necesitas exponerlo en una red, colócalo detrás de un proxy inverso con autenticación.

Instalación vía npm (transporte stdio)

npx lynxprompt-mcp

O instálalo globalmente:

npm install -g lynxprompt-mcp
lynxprompt-mcp

Esto descarga el binario de Go precompilado desde GitHub Releases para tu plataforma y lo ejecuta con transporte stdio. Requiere al menos una versión publicada.

Compilación local

git clone https://github.com/GeiserX/lynxprompt-mcp
cd lynxprompt-mcp

# (optional) create .env from the sample
cp .env.example .env && $EDITOR .env

go run ./cmd/server

Configuración

Variable

Por defecto

Descripción

LYNXPROMPT_URL

https://lynxprompt.com

URL de la instancia de LynxPrompt (sin la / final)

LYNXPROMPT_TOKEN

(requerido)

Token de API en formato lp_xxx

LISTEN_ADDR

127.0.0.1:8080

Dirección de escucha HTTP (Docker establece 0.0.0.0:8080)

TRANSPORT

(vacío = HTTP)

Establecer en stdio para transporte stdio

Ponlas en un archivo .env (desde .env.example) o establécelas en el entorno.

Pruebas

Probado con Inspector y actualmente funciona perfectamente. Antes de realizar un PR, asegúrate de que este servidor MCP se comporte correctamente a través de este medio.

Ejemplo de configuración para clientes LLM

{
  "schema_version": "v1",
  "name_for_human": "LynxPrompt-MCP",
  "name_for_model": "lynxprompt_mcp",
  "description_for_human": "Browse, search, and manage AI configuration blueprints from LynxPrompt.",
  "description_for_model": "Interact with a LynxPrompt instance that stores AI configuration blueprints. First call initialize, then reuse the returned session id in header \"Mcp-Session-Id\" for every other call. Use readResource to fetch URIs that begin with lynxprompt://. Use listTools to discover available actions and callTool to execute them.",
  "auth": { "type": "none" },
  "api": {
    "type": "jsonrpc-mcp",
    "url":  "http://localhost:8080/mcp",
    "init_method": "initialize",
    "session_header": "Mcp-Session-Id"
  },
  "logo_url": "https://lynxprompt.com/logo.png",
  "contact_email": "acsdesk@protonmail.com",
  "legal_info_url": "https://github.com/GeiserX/lynxprompt-mcp/blob/main/LICENSE"
}

Créditos

LynxPrompt -- Gestión de planos de configuración de IA

MCP-GO -- Implementación moderna de MCP

GoReleaser -- Lanzamientos multi-arquitectura sin complicaciones

Mantenedores

@GeiserX.

Contribuciones

¡Siéntete libre de participar! Abre un issue o envía PRs.

LynxPrompt-MCP sigue el Código de Conducta del Contributor Covenant.

Otros servidores MCP de GeiserX

Proyectos relacionados

Proyecto

Descripción

LynxPrompt

Plataforma autohospedada para reglas y comandos de IA para IDE/Herramientas vía WebUI y CLI

lynxprompt-vscode

Extensión de VS Code para la gestión de archivos de configuración de IA de LynxPrompt

lynxprompt-action

GitHub Action para sincronizar y validar archivos de configuración de IA para IDE con LynxPrompt

n8n-nodes-lynxprompt

Nodo de la comunidad n8n para planos de configuración de IA de LynxPrompt

homebrew-lynxprompt

Tap de Homebrew para la CLI de LynxPrompt

Available Tools

6 tools
create_blueprintC
Destructive

Create a new blueprint in LynxPrompt

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesBlueprint content (the actual prompt/instructions text)
descriptionNoShort description of the blueprint (optional)
nameYesName of the blueprint
typeYesBlueprint type, e.g. AGENTS_MD, CLAUDE_MD
visibilityNoVisibility: PRIVATE, TEAM, or PUBLIC (optional, defaults to PRIVATE)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description does not elaborate on the nature of destruction or any side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence, highly concise, but could benefit from slightly more detail without being verbose.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks completeness: it omits the outcome of creation, potential side effects, and usage context beyond the schema.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the tool description does not add extra semantic meaning. Baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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 'create' and object 'blueprint' within the domain 'LynxPrompt', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_blueprint or delete_blueprint.

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 (e.g., update_blueprint) or any prerequisites for its use.

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

create_hierarchyC
Destructive

Create a new hierarchy in LynxPrompt

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
descriptionNoShort description of the hierarchy (optional)
nameYesName of the hierarchy
repository_rootYesRoot path of the repository this hierarchy maps to

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent mutation with side effects. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as auth requirements, return behavior, or failure consequences.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It is front-loaded but too brief to convey necessary information.

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?

For a creation tool with no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a hierarchy is, the outcome of creation, or potential side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 3 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Create a new hierarchy in LynxPrompt', which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling 'create_blueprint', nor does it explain what a hierarchy is.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_blueprint' or 'update_blueprint'. No prerequisites or context are provided.

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

delete_blueprintB
Destructive

Delete a blueprint from LynxPrompt

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID of the blueprint to delete

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description aligns with the destructiveHint annotation, but adds no additional behavioral context such as irreversibility or side effects. With annotations covering the destructive nature, the minimal description is acceptable.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action. For a simple tool, this is appropriately concise without unnecessary detail.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the simple parameter set and presence of annotations, the description is adequate but lacks context about error handling or permanence. It is minimally sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 one parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action 'Delete' and the resource 'blueprint', making the purpose obvious. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create_blueprint, update_blueprint, and search_blueprints which have different operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or recommended contexts for deletion.

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

delete_hierarchyB
Destructive

Delete a hierarchy from LynxPrompt

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID of the hierarchy to delete

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already confirm destructive nature (destructiveHint=true) and non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as cascading effects, reversibility, or required permissions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise, using one short sentence with no filler. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on what happens if the hierarchy has child elements or if the operation is reversible. More context would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'id' described as 'ID of the hierarchy to delete'. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline score of 3.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'hierarchy from LynxPrompt'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create_hierarchy and delete_blueprint by specifying the exact action and resource.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to delete a hierarchy vs a blueprint). No prerequisites, exclusions, or context about the operation's appropriateness.

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

search_blueprintsB
Destructive

Search the public LynxPrompt blueprint marketplace

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
categoryNoFilter by category (optional)
queryYesSearch query string
tagsNoComma-separated tags to filter by (optional)
typeNoFilter by type, e.g. AGENTS_MD, CLAUDE_MD (optional)

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description claims a search operation, but annotations include destructiveHint: true, contradicting the non-destructive nature of a search. The description fails to explain any behavioral traits, and the contradiction severely undermines transparency.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose with no unnecessary words or information.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the return format, pagination, or behavior. The minimal description leaves agents uninformed about results.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the schema already documents their meanings. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is in the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description 'Search the public LynxPrompt blueprint marketplace' clearly states the verb 'search' and the specific resource 'public LynxPrompt blueprint marketplace'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from its siblings which are CRUD operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description simply states its function without any context about prerequisites, limitations, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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

update_blueprintC
Destructive

Update an existing blueprint in LynxPrompt

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentNoNew content for the blueprint (optional)
descriptionNoNew description for the blueprint (optional)
idYesID of the blueprint to update
nameNoNew name for the blueprint (optional)
visibilityNoNew visibility: PRIVATE, TEAM, or PUBLIC (optional)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, side effects, rate limits).

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, but could be more informative without being verbose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple update tool with good schema and annotations, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain behavior for optional fields or error scenarios. No output schema exists, so return value expectations are absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the input schema.

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 'Update' and the resource 'blueprint'. It is unambiguous but lacks differentiation from related tools like create_blueprint or delete_blueprint.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create, delete). No mention of prerequisites or context for the update operation.

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. 6 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedcreate_blueprint
    • First observedcreate_hierarchy
    • First observeddelete_blueprint
    • First observeddelete_hierarchy
    • First observedsearch_blueprints
    • First observedupdate_blueprint
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Scored across 6 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct action on either blueprints or hierarchies, with no overlap in purpose. The operations are clearly separated by resource type.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern using snake_case consistently. The pattern is predictable across all six tools.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for managing two resources (blueprints and hierarchies). Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary duplication.

Completeness3/5

Blueprints have create, delete, update, and search, but no individual get/read tool. Hierarchies have create and delete but lack update and search. These are notable gaps that could cause agent failures.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • mcp-openapi-schema

    hannesj
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    F
    maintenance
    A MCP server that exposes OpenAPI schema information to LLMs like Claude. This server allows an LLM to explore and understand large OpenAPI schemas through a set of specialized tools, without needing to load the whole schema into the context
    101 npm
    49
    MIT