LSP Tools MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| find_regex_positionA | Find the positions (line and column) of regex pattern matches in a file. Returns an array of matches with their positions. Line and column numbers are 0-indexed (first line is 0). Each match includes: match (matched text), line (starting line), column (starting column), endLine (ending line), and endColumn (ending column, exclusive). IMPORTANT: The path parameter must be an absolute path. Relative paths are not supported. |
| list_allowed_directoriesA | Lists all directories that this server is allowed to access. Use this to understand which paths are accessible before trying to access files. Returns an array of absolute paths to allowed directories. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have completely distinct purposes with no overlap. find_regex_position performs a specific text search operation on files, while list_allowed_directories provides metadata about server permissions. An agent would never confuse these tools as they serve fundamentally different functions in the workflow.
Both tools follow a clear verb_noun naming pattern (find_regex_position, list_allowed_directories) with consistent snake_case formatting. The naming is logical and predictable, though with only two tools it's difficult to assess full consistency across a larger set.
With only 2 tools, this server feels severely underpowered for an LSP (Language Server Protocol) context. LSP servers typically handle numerous language operations like diagnostics, completions, definitions, and references. This minimal toolset suggests either an incomplete implementation or a very narrow specialization that doesn't match typical LSP expectations.
For an LSP server, this toolset is severely incomplete. While the two provided tools are useful (file search and directory listing), they represent only a tiny fraction of expected LSP functionality. Missing are core language features like code completion, hover information, go-to-definition, references, diagnostics, formatting, and other standard LSP capabilities that agents would expect from such a server.