Skip to main content
Glama
linxule

Lotus Wisdom MCP Server

by linxule
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'lotuswisdom' is for active contemplative reasoning with a structured workflow, while 'lotuswisdom_summary' is for retrieving a summary of the current journey. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent naming pattern with the 'lotuswisdom' prefix and descriptive suffixes ('lotuswisdom' and 'lotuswisdom_summary'). This creates a predictable and readable convention across the tool set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels under-scoped for its apparent domain of contemplative reasoning and wisdom generation. The core 'lotuswisdom' tool has a complex workflow with many tags, suggesting that additional supporting tools (e.g., for managing or querying specific aspects) would be appropriate to provide a more complete surface.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for the domain. While 'lotuswisdom' handles the main reasoning process and 'lotuswisdom_summary' provides summaries, there are obvious gaps: no tools for managing or resetting contemplative sessions, querying intermediate states, or handling errors within the complex workflow. This will likely cause agent failures or dead ends.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 7 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] a summary,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or what the summary contains (e.g., format, depth). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured safety hints.

    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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient.

    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 tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or differentiation from siblings. For a simple tool with no complexity, this is adequate but leaves clear gaps in usage context.

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate here. Since there are no parameters to explain, it meets the baseline of 4, as it doesn't need to compensate for missing schema information.

    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 ('Get a summary') and the resource ('current contemplative journey'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling tool 'lotuswisdom' (which presumably handles the journey itself rather than summarizing it), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

    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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling 'lotuswisdom' or any alternatives. It implies usage in the context of a 'contemplative journey' but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: the sequential workflow requirement, the prohibition against premature wisdom output, and the categorization of tags into functional roles. It doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, but provides substantial operational context.

    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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with purpose and usage guidelines. The tag categorization is necessary but somewhat dense. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential operational information, though the tag list could be more efficiently presented.

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

    Completeness4/5

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

    For a complex 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the multi-step workflow, tag semantics, and operational constraints. The main gap is lack of information about return values or output format, but given the tool's contemplative nature, the description covers most essential usage context.

    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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the 'tag' parameter through categorization and workflow rules, but doesn't provide additional meaning for other parameters like 'content' or 'stepNumber' beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 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 tool is for 'contemplative reasoning' and specifies use cases like 'complex problems needing multi-perspective understanding' and 'contradictions requiring integration'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'lotuswisdom_summary' by focusing on the reasoning process rather than summarization. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tool.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    The description provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Always start with tag='begin'' and 'Do NOT output wisdom until status='WISDOM_READY''. It also categorizes tags into functional groups (process, meta-cognitive, non-dual, skillful-means, pause), giving clear context for when to use different tags. No explicit alternatives are mentioned, but the structured guidance is comprehensive.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

lotus-wisdom-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

lotus-wisdom-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/linxule/lotus-wisdom-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server