Skip to main content
Glama
pavelpikta

lampa-mcp-server

by pavelpikta
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Resolve authoritative Lampa edit path

resolve_edit_path
Read-onlyIdempotent

Map a change kind to the authoritative source path and list generated build copies to avoid, so you plan edits in the right place.

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesWhat kind of source you intend to change.
nameNoOptional plugin id (e.g. 'tracks') or lang code (e.g. 'en'). Unknown values still return the kind's default paths.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
markdownYesHuman-readable markdown report. Always present, including empty-result cases. Does not write files.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.7.0
    • 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."
  2. Addedv1.6.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it is a fixed landmark lookup with no filesystem walk, and unrecognized names fall back to defaults so the call 'always returns something actionable.' These traits go beyond annotations and meaningfully shape invocation expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, usage second, then a concrete example plus edge-case behavior. Every sentence earns its place without repetition or filler.

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?

Given a rich annotation set, full parameter schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the remaining needs: when to call, what differentiates it, and a non-obvious fallback behavior. There is no critical missing context for correct tool selection and invocation.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage for parameters is 100%, yet the description still adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains how kind+name interact via concrete examples (plugin 'tracks' vs lang 'en') and documents the fallback behavior for unknown names. This is exactly the kind of pragmatic detail an agent needs.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Map' and a clear resource: change kinds to authoritative src/ or plugins/ paths, including listing public/build copies to avoid. It also explicitly contrasts itself with find_files, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools.

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 gives explicit usage timing: 'Call this before plan_change or draft_patch.' It also states what this tool is not ('unlike find_files... not a search'), helping the agent select it over alternatives.

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