{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"awesome-lmql","slug":"lmql","name":"LMQL","type":"mcp","url":"https://lmql.ai/","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/lmql","categories":["mcp-servers"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"unknown","free":false,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"awesome-lmql__cap_0","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.declarative.llm.prompt.specification.with.constraint.based.control.flow","name":"declarative llm prompt specification with constraint-based control flow","description":"LMQL provides a domain-specific language that allows developers to write prompts as declarative queries rather than imperative string concatenation. The language compiles prompt specifications into an intermediate representation that enforces constraints (e.g., token limits, output format requirements) at generation time, enabling structured control over LLM outputs without post-processing. Constraints are evaluated during token generation, allowing early termination or branching based on partial outputs.","intents":["I want to define prompts with guaranteed output formats without writing complex parsing logic","I need to enforce token budgets and length constraints during generation, not after","I want to compose reusable prompt templates with variable substitution and conditional logic","I need to specify multi-turn conversations with role-based message formatting automatically"],"best_for":["teams building production LLM applications requiring deterministic output structures","developers prototyping complex multi-step prompting workflows","researchers experimenting with prompt engineering at scale"],"limitations":["constraint evaluation adds computational overhead during token generation compared to post-hoc filtering","learning curve for developers unfamiliar with domain-specific languages and constraint syntax","limited debugging visibility into constraint violation reasons during generation","constraint expressiveness bounded by what can be efficiently evaluated per-token"],"requires":["Python 3.8+","API access to at least one LLM provider (OpenAI, Hugging Face, Anthropic, or local model)","LMQL compiler and runtime (installable via pip)"],"input_types":["LMQL query syntax (text-based DSL)","template variables (strings, numbers, lists)","constraint specifications (regex, token limits, format rules)"],"output_types":["structured text conforming to declared constraints","JSON objects (when format constraints specify JSON schema)","token sequences with generation metadata"],"categories":["text-generation-language","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-lmql__cap_1","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.multi.provider.llm.abstraction.with.unified.interface","name":"multi-provider llm abstraction with unified interface","description":"LMQL abstracts away provider-specific API differences through a unified query interface that compiles to provider-agnostic intermediate code. Developers write a single LMQL query that can target OpenAI, Anthropic, Hugging Face, or local models by changing a configuration parameter, with automatic handling of tokenization, API request formatting, and response parsing differences across providers.","intents":["I want to switch between LLM providers without rewriting my prompts","I need to compare outputs from multiple models using identical prompts","I want to use local models for privacy but fall back to cloud APIs for capability","I need to abstract away provider-specific token counting and API quirks"],"best_for":["teams evaluating multiple LLM providers for production deployment","developers building provider-agnostic LLM applications","organizations with multi-cloud or hybrid on-prem/cloud strategies"],"limitations":["provider-specific features (e.g., vision capabilities, function calling) may not be fully abstracted","performance characteristics vary significantly across providers; abstraction doesn't normalize latency or cost","some advanced provider features (streaming, logit bias) may require provider-specific configuration","tokenization differences across models can cause constraint violations when switching providers"],"requires":["API keys or endpoints for at least one supported LLM provider","LMQL runtime with provider-specific adapters installed","configuration file specifying target provider and model"],"input_types":["LMQL query (provider-agnostic syntax)","provider configuration (model name, API endpoint, authentication)"],"output_types":["LLM-generated text (format consistent across providers)","generation metadata (tokens used, provider-specific response fields)"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","text-generation-language"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-lmql__cap_10","uri":"capability://memory.knowledge.semantic.caching.and.prompt.result.memoization","name":"semantic caching and prompt result memoization","description":"LMQL supports caching of prompt results based on semantic similarity of inputs, reducing redundant API calls for similar prompts. The caching system uses embeddings to identify semantically equivalent inputs and returns cached results when appropriate, with configurable similarity thresholds and cache invalidation policies.","intents":["I want to reduce API costs by caching results for similar prompts","I need to speed up responses for frequently-asked questions","I want to avoid redundant LLM calls for semantically equivalent inputs","I need to manage cache invalidation and freshness"],"best_for":["high-traffic applications with repeated or similar queries","cost-sensitive deployments where API calls are expensive","systems requiring low-latency responses with cached results"],"limitations":["semantic caching requires embedding models (additional latency and cost)","cache hit rates depend on input similarity distribution (may be low for diverse inputs)","no built-in support for cache persistence or distributed caching","cache invalidation policies are difficult to configure correctly"],"requires":["LMQL runtime with caching support","embedding model for semantic similarity","cache storage (in-memory or external)"],"input_types":["LMQL queries","input prompts"],"output_types":["cached or freshly-generated results","cache hit/miss metadata"],"categories":["memory-knowledge","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-lmql__cap_11","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.prompt.versioning.and.a.b.testing.framework","name":"prompt versioning and a/b testing framework","description":"LMQL provides utilities for managing multiple versions of prompts and conducting A/B tests to compare performance across variants. The framework tracks prompt versions, routes inputs to different variants, collects metrics, and provides statistical analysis tools for determining which variant performs better.","intents":["I want to test different prompt variations and measure their performance","I need to track prompt versions and rollback to previous versions","I want to conduct A/B tests to optimize prompt quality","I need to compare metrics across prompt variants (accuracy, cost, latency)"],"best_for":["teams optimizing prompts through experimentation","organizations conducting prompt A/B tests at scale","developers managing prompt versions in production"],"limitations":["A/B testing requires sufficient traffic to achieve statistical significance","metric collection and analysis require external infrastructure","no built-in support for multi-armed bandit algorithms or adaptive routing","results may be confounded by external factors (model updates, API changes)"],"requires":["LMQL runtime with versioning support","metrics collection infrastructure","statistical analysis tools"],"input_types":["prompt variants (different LMQL queries)","test inputs and evaluation metrics"],"output_types":["variant performance metrics","statistical analysis results","version history and rollback information"],"categories":["automation-workflow","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-lmql__cap_12","uri":"capability://memory.knowledge.integration.with.external.knowledge.bases.and.retrieval.systems","name":"integration with external knowledge bases and retrieval systems","description":"LMQL enables integration with external knowledge bases, vector stores, and retrieval systems through a unified interface. Developers can query external knowledge sources within LMQL prompts, automatically incorporating retrieved context into LLM inputs, supporting retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) patterns without external orchestration.","intents":["I want to augment prompts with relevant context from a knowledge base","I need to implement RAG (retrieval-augmented generation) patterns","I want to query vector stores and incorporate results into prompts","I need to combine LLM reasoning with external knowledge retrieval"],"best_for":["RAG applications requiring knowledge base integration","question-answering systems combining retrieval and generation","applications requiring up-to-date information from external sources"],"limitations":["retrieval latency adds overhead to prompt execution","no built-in support for retrieval quality assessment or ranking","knowledge base integration requires external setup and maintenance","context incorporation may exceed token limits for large retrieved documents"],"requires":["LMQL runtime with retrieval integration","external knowledge base or vector store","retrieval API or client library"],"input_types":["retrieval queries (text or structured)","knowledge base or vector store connection"],"output_types":["retrieved context (text or structured data)","augmented prompts with retrieved information"],"categories":["memory-knowledge","search-retrieval"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-lmql__cap_2","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.token.level.constraint.validation.and.early.termination","name":"token-level constraint validation and early termination","description":"LMQL evaluates constraints (regex patterns, token limits, format rules) incrementally as tokens are generated, allowing generation to stop early if constraints are violated or satisfied. This is implemented by intercepting the token generation loop and checking constraints against partial outputs, enabling efficient resource usage and deterministic output formats without waiting for full sequence completion.","intents":["I want to stop generation as soon as a valid output is produced, not wait for max_tokens","I need to guarantee outputs match a regex pattern or format specification","I want to enforce strict token budgets without exceeding them","I need to branch to different prompts based on intermediate generation results"],"best_for":["applications requiring strict output format guarantees (JSON, structured data)","cost-sensitive deployments where early termination saves tokens and money","real-time systems where latency is critical and partial results are acceptable","systems requiring deterministic behavior for testing and validation"],"limitations":["constraint checking adds per-token latency (typically 1-5ms per token depending on constraint complexity)","complex regex constraints can become bottlenecks during generation","some constraints (e.g., semantic validity) cannot be evaluated token-by-token and require post-processing","early termination may produce incomplete or lower-quality outputs if constraints are too restrictive"],"requires":["LMQL runtime with constraint evaluation engine","well-defined constraint specifications (regex, token counts, format rules)","LLM provider supporting streaming or token-level access"],"input_types":["constraint specifications (regex patterns, token limits, format rules)","partial token sequences during generation"],"output_types":["constrained text output (guaranteed to match specification)","generation metadata (tokens used, constraint satisfaction status)"],"categories":["text-generation-language","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-lmql__cap_3","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.template.based.prompt.composition.with.variable.interpolation","name":"template-based prompt composition with variable interpolation","description":"LMQL provides a templating system that allows developers to define reusable prompt templates with variable placeholders, conditional blocks, and loop constructs. Templates are compiled into executable prompt specifications that interpolate variables at runtime, supporting composition of complex multi-step prompts from modular components without string concatenation or manual formatting.","intents":["I want to define reusable prompt templates that work across different inputs","I need to compose complex prompts from smaller modular components","I want to conditionally include or exclude prompt sections based on input","I need to iterate over lists of items in a prompt (e.g., few-shot examples)"],"best_for":["teams managing large libraries of prompts across multiple applications","developers building prompt-as-code systems with version control","organizations standardizing prompt formats and best practices","applications requiring dynamic prompt generation based on runtime data"],"limitations":["template syntax adds cognitive overhead compared to simple string formatting","debugging template composition issues requires understanding LMQL's compilation process","variable scoping and context management can become complex in deeply nested templates","no built-in template inheritance or advanced OOP-style composition patterns"],"requires":["LMQL runtime with template compiler","understanding of LMQL template syntax and variable binding rules"],"input_types":["LMQL template syntax (text with variable placeholders and control flow)","runtime variables (strings, lists, dictionaries)"],"output_types":["interpolated prompt text ready for LLM execution","compiled prompt specification with variable bindings"],"categories":["text-generation-language","code-generation-editing"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-lmql__cap_4","uri":"capability://memory.knowledge.few.shot.example.management.and.dynamic.selection","name":"few-shot example management and dynamic selection","description":"LMQL provides utilities for managing few-shot examples within prompts, including automatic example selection based on input similarity, example formatting, and dynamic inclusion/exclusion based on token budgets. Examples can be stored in structured formats and selected at runtime using semantic similarity or other heuristics, reducing manual prompt engineering for few-shot learning.","intents":["I want to automatically select the most relevant few-shot examples for each input","I need to manage a large library of examples and include only the most relevant ones","I want to format examples consistently across different prompt templates","I need to stay within token budgets while including as many relevant examples as possible"],"best_for":["applications using few-shot learning at scale with large example libraries","teams optimizing prompt performance through example selection","systems requiring dynamic example selection based on input characteristics"],"limitations":["example selection heuristics (similarity-based) require embedding models or external services","managing large example libraries requires external storage and retrieval infrastructure","no built-in support for example quality assessment or automatic curation","example selection latency can add significant overhead if not cached"],"requires":["LMQL runtime with example management utilities","example storage (in-memory, database, or vector store)","optionally, embedding model for similarity-based selection"],"input_types":["example library (structured data with input/output pairs)","selection criteria (similarity threshold, token budget, example count)"],"output_types":["selected examples formatted for inclusion in prompts","example metadata (relevance scores, token counts)"],"categories":["memory-knowledge","text-generation-language"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-lmql__cap_5","uri":"capability://code.generation.editing.interactive.prompt.debugging.and.development.environment","name":"interactive prompt debugging and development environment","description":"LMQL provides an interactive development environment (IDE or REPL) that allows developers to write, test, and debug LMQL queries in real-time. The environment shows intermediate outputs, constraint violations, token usage, and generation traces, enabling rapid iteration on prompt specifications without deploying to production.","intents":["I want to test prompt changes and see results immediately without redeploying","I need to debug why a constraint is being violated during generation","I want to visualize token usage and generation traces to optimize prompts","I need to experiment with different prompt variations quickly"],"best_for":["prompt engineers and researchers iterating on prompt designs","developers debugging complex multi-step prompting workflows","teams collaborating on prompt development with shared debugging tools"],"limitations":["interactive environment requires API access to LLM providers (costs accumulate during development)","debugging traces can be verbose for long generations, making analysis difficult","no built-in version control or experiment tracking (requires external tools)","limited support for debugging provider-specific behaviors or edge cases"],"requires":["LMQL IDE or Jupyter notebook integration","API credentials for LLM providers","Python 3.8+ environment"],"input_types":["LMQL query code","test inputs and variables"],"output_types":["LLM outputs with generation traces","constraint evaluation results","token usage statistics"],"categories":["code-generation-editing","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-lmql__cap_6","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.batch.processing.and.asynchronous.prompt.execution","name":"batch processing and asynchronous prompt execution","description":"LMQL supports batch execution of multiple prompts with asynchronous I/O, allowing developers to process large datasets efficiently without blocking on individual LLM API calls. Batch operations are optimized for throughput, with support for rate limiting, retry logic, and result aggregation, enabling cost-effective processing of large-scale prompt applications.","intents":["I want to process thousands of prompts efficiently without blocking","I need to apply the same prompt template to a large dataset","I want to respect API rate limits while maximizing throughput","I need to aggregate results from batch processing for analysis"],"best_for":["data processing pipelines applying LLM operations to large datasets","batch inference systems processing millions of prompts","cost-sensitive applications optimizing API usage through batching"],"limitations":["batch processing introduces latency compared to single-prompt execution","error handling in batch operations requires careful management (partial failures)","result aggregation and post-processing require additional infrastructure","no built-in support for distributed batch processing across multiple machines"],"requires":["LMQL runtime with batch execution support","input data source (file, database, or streaming source)","sufficient API quota for batch processing"],"input_types":["LMQL query template","batch input data (CSV, JSON, or streaming source)"],"output_types":["batch results (structured data with outputs and metadata)","execution logs and error reports"],"categories":["automation-workflow","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-lmql__cap_7","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.cost.estimation.and.token.accounting","name":"cost estimation and token accounting","description":"LMQL provides built-in utilities for estimating costs and tracking token usage across prompts, including per-provider pricing models and detailed breakdowns of input/output tokens. Developers can analyze cost implications of prompt changes and optimize for cost-efficiency before deploying to production.","intents":["I want to estimate the cost of running my prompts at scale","I need to track token usage and identify expensive prompts","I want to optimize prompts for cost without sacrificing quality","I need to budget for LLM API costs in my application"],"best_for":["cost-conscious teams deploying LLM applications at scale","developers optimizing prompts for cost-efficiency","organizations tracking LLM spending across multiple projects"],"limitations":["cost estimation requires up-to-date pricing data (may lag provider price changes)","token counting varies across providers; estimates may not match actual costs","no built-in support for custom pricing models or volume discounts","cost analysis requires running prompts (cannot estimate without execution)"],"requires":["LMQL runtime with cost tracking enabled","provider pricing configuration"],"input_types":["LMQL queries","execution logs with token counts"],"output_types":["cost estimates (per-prompt and aggregate)","token usage breakdowns (input, output, total)"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-lmql__cap_8","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.type.safe.function.calling.with.schema.validation","name":"type-safe function calling with schema validation","description":"LMQL enables structured function calling by allowing developers to define function signatures with type annotations and parameter constraints. The language automatically generates prompts that guide LLMs to call functions with valid arguments, validates outputs against schemas, and handles function execution with error recovery.","intents":["I want to call external functions from LLM outputs with guaranteed type safety","I need to validate function arguments before execution","I want to handle function call errors and retry with corrected arguments","I need to compose LLM outputs with deterministic function calls"],"best_for":["agents and autonomous systems requiring reliable function calling","applications integrating LLMs with external APIs or tools","systems requiring type-safe LLM-to-code interactions"],"limitations":["schema validation adds overhead to function call processing","LLMs may struggle with complex function signatures or many parameters","error recovery requires additional prompt engineering and retries","no built-in support for asynchronous function execution"],"requires":["LMQL runtime with function calling support","function definitions with type annotations","schema validation library (e.g., Pydantic)"],"input_types":["function signatures with type annotations","LLM-generated function calls (text)"],"output_types":["validated function arguments (typed objects)","function execution results"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","code-generation-editing"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-lmql__cap_9","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.multi.turn.conversation.management.with.role.based.formatting","name":"multi-turn conversation management with role-based formatting","description":"LMQL provides built-in support for multi-turn conversations with automatic role-based message formatting (user, assistant, system). The language handles conversation state management, message history, and context window management, enabling developers to build conversational applications without manual message formatting or state tracking.","intents":["I want to build chatbots with automatic message formatting and history management","I need to manage conversation context and enforce context window limits","I want to define system prompts and role-based message templates","I need to handle multi-turn interactions with automatic state management"],"best_for":["conversational AI applications and chatbots","multi-turn dialogue systems","applications requiring context-aware responses"],"limitations":["automatic context window management may truncate important history","no built-in support for conversation persistence or storage","limited support for complex conversation flows (branching, conditional logic)","message formatting is opinionated and may not match all use cases"],"requires":["LMQL runtime with conversation management support","LLM provider supporting multi-turn conversations"],"input_types":["user messages (text)","system prompts and role definitions"],"output_types":["formatted conversation messages","assistant responses with role metadata"],"categories":["text-generation-language","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":28,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["Python 3.8+","API access to at least one LLM provider (OpenAI, Hugging Face, Anthropic, or local model)","LMQL compiler and runtime (installable via pip)","API keys or endpoints for at least one supported LLM provider","LMQL runtime with provider-specific adapters installed","configuration file specifying target provider and model","LMQL runtime with caching support","embedding model for semantic similarity","cache storage (in-memory or external)","LMQL runtime with versioning support"],"failure_modes":["constraint evaluation adds computational overhead during token generation compared to post-hoc filtering","learning curve for developers unfamiliar with domain-specific languages and constraint syntax","limited debugging visibility into constraint violation reasons during generation","constraint expressiveness bounded by what can be efficiently evaluated per-token","provider-specific features (e.g., vision capabilities, function calling) may not be fully abstracted","performance characteristics vary significantly across providers; abstraction doesn't normalize latency or cost","some advanced provider features (streaming, logit bias) may require provider-specific configuration","tokenization differences across models can cause constraint violations when switching providers","semantic caching requires embedding models (additional latency and cost)","cache hit rates depend on input similarity distribution (may be low for diverse inputs)","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.05,"quality":0.35,"ecosystem":0.25,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.75,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.15,"match_graph":0.23,"freshness":0.12}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-06-17T09:51:03.577Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-05-03T14:00:20.516Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=lmql","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=lmql"}},"signature":"m3Gw+DHKZKc0L3htEaHchfW8cuGtQlfmd48QU6t9lvQ63R5rX/V+WEdy5efZA842au7qxE7icl8UOtIIQrZmAg==","signedAt":"2026-06-22T06:37:22.159Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/lmql","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/lmql","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=lmql","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}