lampa-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Resolve authoritative Lampa edit path

resolve_edit_path

Read-onlyIdempotent

Maps a change kind and optional name to the authoritative src/ or plugins/ path, listing generated public/build copies to avoid before planning or drafting a patch.

Instructions

Map a change kind (lang, sass, template, component, plugin, core, interaction, settings) to the authoritative src/ or plugins/ path and list generated public/build copies to avoid. Call this before plan_change or draft_patch; unlike find_files, this is a fixed landmark table look-up (no filesystem walk, no content search), not a search. Example: kind=plugin name='tracks' returns plugins/tracks specifically, vs kind=lang name='en' returns src/lang/en.js; an unrecognized name does not fail — it falls back to the kind's default authoritative/avoid paths so the call always returns something actionable. name has no effect for kind=sass or kind=settings — those paths are fixed and have no per-name variant, so it is silently ignored there.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes	What kind of source you intend to change.
`name`	No	Optional plugin id (e.g. 'tracks') or lang code (e.g. 'en'). Unknown values still return the kind's default paths.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`markdown`	Yes	Human-readable markdown report. Always present, including empty-result cases. Does not write files.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.7.0Sep 4, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / name / description

Previous value: -"Optional name, e.g. plugin id 'tracks' or lang code 'en'."New value: +"Optional plugin id (e.g. 'tracks') or lang code (e.g. 'en'). Unknown values still return the kind's default paths."

Addedv1.6.0Sep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), and the description adds behavior beyond that: no filesystem walk or content search, graceful fallback on unrecognized `name` so the call 'always returns something actionable', and silent ignoring of `name` for sass/settings. These are exactly the traits an agent needs to predict outcomes.

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 critical routing constraint ('call before plan_change/draft_patch') and the contrast with find_files are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information. It is slightly dense with examples and edge-case clauses packed into one long paragraph, which costs a point against a tighter structure.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema (so return values needn't be described), the description covers ordering relative to siblings, fallback behavior, and kind-specific edge cases. Nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: it enumerates what each `kind` maps to with two worked examples, states `name` has no effect for `kind=sass` and `kind=settings`, and clarifies the fallback for unknown names. That is meaning the schema alone does not convey.

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 states a specific verb ('Map') and resource ('a change kind ... to the authoritative src/ or plugins/ path'), lists the exact enum values, and explicitly contrasts itself with `find_files` as a fixed landmark look-up rather than a search. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening the schema.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition ('Call this before `plan_change` or `draft_patch`') and a negative rule ('unlike `find_files`, this is a fixed landmark table look-up ... not a search'). The two concrete examples (kind=plugin vs kind=lang) further pin down intended use.

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

Deploy Server