lampa-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Trace one Lampa symbol through code

trace_symbol

Read-onlyIdempotent

Follow a symbol through the snapshot graph to trace its event listeners, component lifecycle, dependency blast radius, API calls, or upgrade impact.

Instructions

Follow one event, component, file, or provider through the snapshot graph — not a full catalog (list_catalog) and not raw grep (search_code). Examples: mode=event target=app; lifecycle target=src/components/full.js; deps a file path; upgrade a repo-relative file path (not an API name); omit target only for api_calls (optional target is a provider keyword). Missing target otherwise → error; unknown event → markdown note (not a crash); deps reverse-refs cap at 20.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	Yes	event=Listener bus; lifecycle=component contract; deps=import blast radius; api_calls=external fetches; upgrade=scan a file for 2.x→Maker APIs.
`target`	No	Required except api_calls. event: name e.g. 'app'/'player'; lifecycle: component name or path e.g. 'src/components/full.js'; deps/upgrade: repo-relative file path; api_calls: optional provider keyword.

Output Schema

TableJSON 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.

Addedv1.8.0Sep 4, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: missing target causes an error, unknown event produces a markdown note instead of crashing, and deps reverse-refs are capped at 20. These are exactly the kind of edge-case behaviors an agent needs to know.

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 dense but efficient: purpose is front-loaded, the exclusions are one clause, examples are compressed into a semicolon list, and edge-case behaviors are stated compactly. Every segment carries necessary information for a tool with five modes.

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 the output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description covers all needed call context: mode semantics, target requirements, error behavior, and a result cap. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant semantic value. It explains target semantics per mode, clarifies that deps/upgrade expect repo-relative paths (not API names), and specifies that api_calls takes an optional provider keyword. This goes well beyond the schema field descriptions.

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-resource pairing: 'Follow one event, component, file, or provider through the snapshot graph.' It explicitly contrasts itself with list_catalog and search_code, so an agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings without opening schemas.

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 names the alternatives it is not ('not a full catalog (list_catalog) and not raw grep (search_code)') and provides concrete per-mode examples with target formats. It also states the key usage rule: omit target only for api_calls, otherwise target is required. This leaves no ambiguity about when or how to use the tool.

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

Deploy Server