Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@aetherall/mcp-nvim-tmux

@aetherall/mcp-nvim-tmux

by Aetherall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

nvim_play

Play an asciinema recording by matching a file name or pattern in a Neovim tmux session, letting AI agents replay terminal activity.

Instructions

Play an asciinema recording

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pattern": "<pattern>"
    },
    "name": "nvim_play"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patternYesRecording file name or pattern to match

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'play'. It does not disclose whether playback is blocking, whether it streams to a terminal or a buffer, whether an active nvim session is required, or what happens on a pattern miss.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than being actively harmful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: playback mechanics, session requirements, and the result of the call are all unaddressed. One short clause cannot cover the behavior an agent needs before invoking it.

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% and there is a single parameter with an inline description, so the schema already explains that 'pattern' matches a recording file name. The description adds no format or matching semantics beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (play) and resource (asciinema recording), so an agent understands the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the related sibling nvim_recordings, which lists recordings, leaving that routing inference to the agent.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus nvim_recordings or nvim_cmd, no prerequisite stated (e.g. whether an nvim session must be running), and no exclusions. The agent must guess the context entirely.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools