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

@aetherall/mcp-nvim-tmux

by Aetherall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

nvim_source_lua

Execute a Lua file in Neovim via :luafile to load configuration or scripts into a running tmux session.

Instructions

Source a Lua file in Neovim using :luafile command

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": {
      "session": "<session>",
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "nvim_source_lua"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sessionYesSession name
file_pathYesPath to the Lua file to source

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 burden. Sourcing a Lua file executes arbitrary code with potential side effects on the running Neovim session, but the description discloses nothing about side effects, reversibility, permissions, or return behavior. Naming the :luafile mechanism is the only added context.

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 no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing behavioral detail rather than being purely a virtue.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema the description covers the core action, but the absence of annotations means it should ideally disclose the code-execution side effects and session impact. It is minimally adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 both 'session' and 'file_path' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, path-resolution, or format details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Source') and resource ('a Lua file in Neovim') plus the underlying mechanism (:luafile). This clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like nvim_cmd or nvim_edit, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 alternatives such as nvim_cmd (which could also execute Lua) or nvim_edit. The agent is left to infer that this is the dedicated path for loading Lua files.

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