A
licenseB
qualityF
maintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables LLMs to read, search, and analyze code files with advanced caching and real-time file watching capabilities.
6
15 npm
39
MIT
LSP Tools MCP Server
by rajnaveen344
LSP 도구 MCP 서버
텍스트 분석을 위한 언어 서버 프로토콜과 유사한 기능을 제공하는 모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜(MCP) 서버입니다.
특징
정규식 위치 찾기 : 파일에서 정규식 패턴 일치의 0부터 인덱스된 줄과 열 위치 찾기
허용된 디렉토리 목록 : 서버가 액세스할 수 있는 디렉토리 목록을 가져옵니다.
Related MCP server: TokenScope
설치
지엑스피1
용법
# Start the server allowing access to a specific directory
node dist/index.js /path/to/allowed/directory
# Start the server with multiple allowed directories
node dist/index.js /path/to/dir1 /path/to/dir2 /path/to/dir3개발
테스트 실행
이 프로젝트는 테스트에 Jest를 사용합니다. 다음을 사용하여 테스트를 실행하세요.
npm test개발 중에 감시 모드에서 테스트를 실행하려면:
npm run test:watch린팅
ESLint로 코드를 린트합니다.
npm run lint도구 문서
정규식 위치 찾기
이 도구는 파일에서 정규식 패턴 일치의 0부터 시작하는 줄과 열 위치를 찾습니다.
매개변수:
path: 검색할 파일의 경로regex: 검색할 정규 표현식 패턴
보고:
다음 속성을 가진 일치 항목의 배열:
match: 일치하는 텍스트line: 시작 라인(0-인덱스)column: 시작 열(0부터 인덱스)endLine: 종료 라인(0부터 인덱스)endColumn: 종료 열(0부터 인덱스, 제외)
허용된 디렉토리 목록
이 도구는 이 서버가 액세스할 수 있는 모든 디렉토리를 나열합니다.
매개변수:
없음
보고:
허용된 디렉토리에 대한 절대 경로 배열
특허
MIT
Available Tools
2 toolsfind_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.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute path to the file to search in. Relative paths are not supported. | |
| regex | Yes | Regular expression pattern to search for |
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
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.
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.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
A4.6/5.0
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.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
2 tool updates
- First observed
find_regex_position - First observed
list_allowed_directories
TDQS
A4/5.0
Scored across 2 tools
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.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues
Related MCP Connectors
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Model Context Protocol server for Studex tools, notifications, and profile integrations
Repository knowledge graph MCP server for codebase understanding and debugging.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables token-aware directory exploration and file analysis for LLMs, helping them understand codebases through intelligent scanning and reporting.4MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that provides powerful regex-based code refactoring and search tools for Coding Agents.236 npm7MIT
- FlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables keyword search within files, returning matching lines with line numbers.11-