Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ljs-mcp

ljs-mcp

by LJS-Y
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

ljs_api

Query TypeScript signatures for an LJS plugin API before coding to confirm parameter names and types and avoid incorrect guesses; omit the API name to list all signatures.

Instructions

查询某个 LJS 插件的 TypeScript 签名。写代码前用它确认参数名与类型，避免靠印象猜错——这些包的参数多为解构对象（如 handleListTree 收 { data, id, parentId, children }），凭记忆写极易出错。不传 api 参数则返回该包全部签名（ljs-tools 约 16K 字符，慎用）。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "plugin": "<plugin>"
    },
    "name": "ljs_api"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apiNo可选：接口名或方法名，如 LJSnumModule、moneySplit
pluginYesnpm 包名，如 trends-table-vue3

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does valuable disclosure: omitting `api` returns all signatures and can produce a very large payload (~16K chars), and package params are typically destructured objects that are easy to misremember. It does not say what happens for an unknown plugin/api name, the response format, or any truncation behavior, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then rationale, then the caveat; three tight sentences with no filler. The two clauses about guessing/misremembering params overlap slightly and one could be dropped without loss.

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 2-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the core is covered: purpose, when to use, the omission behavior, and payload size. Still missing are the return format (raw .d.ts text vs structured JSON), error behavior for invalid plugin/api values, and any sibling-routing guidance.

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% and both params are documented with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one genuinely new semantic: what happens when `api` is omitted (whole-package dump with a size warning), which the schema does not state.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: query the TypeScript signature of a given LJS plugin, plus the concrete motivation (verify parameter names/types before writing code). It is clearly distinct in kind from a search or file-read sibling, though it never names ljs_search/ljs_read to route the agent explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear when-to-use rule ("before writing code, use this to confirm parameter names and types instead of guessing") and a concrete caution for the no-api case (returns every signature, ~16K characters for ljs-tools, use sparingly). It does not name alternative tools or state when another sibling is the better choice, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools