mcp-server-nuxt

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

add_route

Scaffold a new Nuxt page route under pages/ using static, dynamic, optional, or catch-all segments, with dry-run planning and optional layout/middleware metadata.

Instructions

Scaffold a new page route under pages/ following Nuxt conventions. Supports static, dynamic (:id -> [id]), optional ([[id]]), and catch-all ([...slug]) segments.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "add_route"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	Route path, e.g. /users/:id or /about
`dryRun`	No	When true (default), return the planned file without writing
`layout`	No	Optional layout name to set in definePageMeta
`middleware`	No	Optional middleware names to set in definePageMeta

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It never says the tool creates files on disk, whether it refuses or overwrites when a route already exists, or that writes are preview-only unless dryRun is disabled — the key mutation risk for this tool is left unstated.

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?

Two tight sentences, purpose first, convention details second. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be dropped without losing information.

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 file-writing scaffold tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what gets created and where, but omits collision handling and a description of what the call returns, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent about to mutate a project.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning about the `path` parameter by explaining the segment-to-filename mapping (:id -> [id], optional, catch-all), which the schema only partially illustrates.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Scaffold a new page route under pages/'. The 'under pages/' scope implicitly separates it from scaffold_nitro_api (server routes), but that sibling is never named, so differentiation relies on the agent's inference.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the purpose (create a page route when you need a new page) but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among siblings like generate_component or scaffold_nitro_api.

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