Skip to main content
Glama
rajnaveen344

LSP Tools MCP Server

by rajnaveen344
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

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 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.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    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.

    Tool Count2/5

    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.

    Completeness2/5

    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.

  • Average 4.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • 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

  • Behavior4/5

    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 effectively describes the return format (array structure with specific fields), indexing convention (0-indexed), and path requirement (absolute only). It doesn't mention error handling, performance characteristics, or permission requirements, but provides substantial behavioral context.

    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 efficiently structured with zero wasted sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, details the return format, and ends with the critical constraint. Every sentence adds essential information for tool understanding and usage.

    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 tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about the return format and behavioral constraints. It could potentially mention error cases or performance considerations, but covers the essential information needed to use the tool effectively.

    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 both parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces the 'absolute path' requirement for the path parameter but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

    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 clearly states the specific action ('Find the positions of regex pattern matches'), resource ('in a file'), and output format ('Returns an array of matches with their positions'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'list_allowed_directories' by focusing on regex matching rather than directory listing.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (searching for regex matches in files) and includes an important constraint ('path parameter must be an absolute path'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives to regex-based searching.

    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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'an array of absolute paths to allowed directories,' which is useful behavioral context about the output format. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, permissions needed, or whether the list is cached.

    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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance and output details. It's front-loaded and efficiently structured.

    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?

    Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the return format. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details like error conditions or performance characteristics.

    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, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information since none exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and output.

    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 clearly states the specific action ('Lists all directories') and resource ('that this server is allowed to access'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'find_regex_position' which appears unrelated to directory listing. It provides a complete picture of what the tool does.

    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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to understand which paths are accessible before trying to access files.' This provides clear context and purpose for invocation, though it doesn't mention alternatives since the sibling tool is unrelated.

    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

lsp-tools-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

lsp-tools-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/rajnaveen344/lsp-tools-mcp'

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