de en es ja ko ru zh

lynxprompt-mcp

Name: lynxprompt-mcp
Author: GeiserX

by GeiserX

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Remote

제공 기능

유형	용도	MCP URI / 도구 ID
리소스	청사진, 계층 구조 및 사용자 정보 읽기 전용 탐색	`lynxprompt://blueprintslynxprompt://blueprint/{id}lynxprompt://hierarchieslynxprompt://hierarchy/{id}lynxprompt://user`
도구	청사진 생성, 업데이트, 삭제 및 계층 구조 관리	`search_blueprintscreate_blueprintupdate_blueprintdelete_blueprintcreate_hierarchydelete_hierarchy`

모든 기능은 단일 JSON-RPC 엔드포인트(/mcp)를 통해 노출됩니다. LLM/에이전트는 initialize -> readResource -> listTools -> callTool 등의 작업을 수행할 수 있습니다.

Related MCP server: mcp-openapi-schema

빠른 시작 (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

보안 참고: HTTP 전송은 기본적으로 127.0.0.1:8080에서 수신 대기합니다. 네트워크에 노출해야 하는 경우 인증이 포함된 리버스 프록시 뒤에 배치하십시오.

npm을 통한 설치 (stdio 전송)

npx lynxprompt-mcp

또는 전역으로 설치:

npm install -g lynxprompt-mcp
lynxprompt-mcp

이 명령은 GitHub 릴리스에서 플랫폼에 맞는 사전 빌드된 Go 바이너리를 다운로드하고 stdio 전송으로 실행합니다. 최소 하나 이상의 공개된 릴리스가 필요합니다.

로컬 빌드

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

구성

변수	기본값	설명
`LYNXPROMPT_URL`	`https://lynxprompt.com`	LynxPrompt 인스턴스 URL (끝에 / 제외)
`LYNXPROMPT_TOKEN`	(필수)	`lp_xxx` 형식의 API 토큰
`LISTEN_ADDR`	`127.0.0.1:8080`	HTTP 수신 대기 주소 (Docker는 `0.0.0.0:8080` 설정)
`TRANSPORT`	(비어 있음 = HTTP)	stdio 전송을 사용하려면 `stdio`로 설정

.env 파일( .env.example에서 복사)에 넣거나 환경 변수로 설정하십시오.

테스트

Inspector로 테스트했으며 현재 완전히 작동합니다. PR을 생성하기 전에 이 매체를 통해 MCP 서버가 잘 작동하는지 확인하십시오.

클라이언트 LLM을 위한 구성 예시

{
  "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"
}

크레딧

LynxPrompt -- AI 구성 청사진 관리

MCP-GO -- 최신 MCP 구현

GoReleaser -- 간편한 멀티 아키텍처 릴리스

관리자

@GeiserX.

기여

언제든 참여해 주세요! 이슈를 열거나 PR을 제출해 주십시오.

LynxPrompt-MCP는 Contributor Covenant 행동 강령을 따릅니다.

GeiserX의 다른 MCP 서버

cashpilot-mcp — 수동 소득 모니터링
duplicacy-mcp — 백업 상태 모니터링
genieacs-mcp — TR-069 장치 관리
pumperly-mcp — 연료 및 EV 충전 가격
telegram-archive-mcp — 텔레그램 메시지 아카이브

Available Tools

6 tools

create_blueprintC

Destructive

Create a new blueprint in LynxPrompt

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`content`	Yes	Blueprint content (the actual prompt/instructions text)
`description`	No	Short description of the blueprint (optional)
`name`	Yes	Name of the blueprint
`type`	Yes	Blueprint type, e.g. AGENTS_MD, CLAUDE_MD
`visibility`	No	Visibility: 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

Name	Required	Description
`description`	No	Short description of the hierarchy (optional)
`name`	Yes	Name of the hierarchy
`repository_root`	Yes	Root 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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	ID 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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	ID 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

Name	Required	Description
`category`	No	Filter by category (optional)
`query`	Yes	Search query string
`tags`	No	Comma-separated tags to filter by (optional)
`type`	No	Filter 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

Name	Required	Description
`content`	No	New content for the blueprint (optional)
`description`	No	New description for the blueprint (optional)
`id`	Yes	ID of the blueprint to update
`name`	No	New name for the blueprint (optional)
`visibility`	No	New 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.

6 tool updatesv0.1.0Apr 3, 2026
- 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 2026-05-09 00:30 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

Need Help?

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

jumpcloud-genaiOAuth
com.jumpcloud
An MCP server that provides an API to LLMs to manage their JumpCloud resources.
Cloud Platforms Security Developer Tools
2
mcp A
ai.llmse
Public MCP server for the LLM Search Engine
Search RAG Systems Developer Tools
102
mcp AOAuth
io.scorecard
MCP server providing access to the Scorecard API to evaluate and optimize LLM systems.
RAG Systems Monitoring Testing & QA Tools
3
PlanExe A
io.github.PlanExeOrg
MCP server for generating rough-draft project plans from natural-language prompts.
Autonomous Agents Developer Tools Project Management
113401

Related MCP Servers

mcp-llm
Code Execution Autonomous Agents
sammcj
A
license
B
quality
C
maintenance
An MCP server that provides LLMs access to other LLMs
Updated 2 years ago (2025-03-15 05:37 UTC)
4
24 npm
78
MIT
mcp-openapi-schema
RAG Systems Documentation Access
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
Updated 2 years ago (2025-03-13 13:50 UTC)
101 npm
49
MIT
@prompthub/mcp
Developer Tools AI & Machine Learning
LionelHao
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
MCP server for PromptHub. Enables publishing, fetching, listing, updating, and searching prompt repositories from Claude Code or Codex.
Updated a month ago (2026-08-12 03:57 UTC)
1 npm
MIT
DocsHub MCP Server
Documentation Access Developer Tools
rkratky
F
license
A
quality
B
maintenance
An MCP server that provides AI clients with access to developer documentation via llms.txt files. Exposes tools, resources, and prompts.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-31 17:30 UTC)
3
1
-

프로젝트	설명
LynxPrompt	WebUI 및 CLI를 통한 AI IDE/도구 규칙 및 명령을 위한 자체 호스팅 플랫폼
lynxprompt-vscode	LynxPrompt AI 구성 파일 관리를 위한 VS Code 확장 프로그램
lynxprompt-action	AI IDE 구성 파일을 LynxPrompt와 동기화하고 검증하기 위한 GitHub Action
n8n-nodes-lynxprompt	LynxPrompt AI 구성 청사진을 위한 n8n 커뮤니티 노드
homebrew-lynxprompt	LynxPrompt CLI용 Homebrew 탭

제공 기능

빠른 시작 (Docker Compose)

npm을 통한 설치 (stdio 전송)

로컬 빌드

구성

테스트

클라이언트 LLM을 위한 구성 예시

크레딧

관리자

기여

GeiserX의 다른 MCP 서버

관련 프로젝트

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers