mcp-server-nuxt

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_route

Retrieve detailed information for one Nuxt page route using its resolved URL path (e.g., /users/:id), so you can inspect route-specific configuration and structure.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a single page route by its resolved URL path (e.g. /users/:id).

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": "get_route"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	The resolved route path, e.g. /users/:id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a safe read, but the description does not disclose what 'detailed information' includes, what happens when the path is not found, or whether a build/dev server is required.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key qualifier ('single page route', 'resolved URL path') arrives immediately and the example anchors the expected format. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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?

The tool is simple (one required string param, no output schema), but 'detailed information' is never unpacked, so an agent cannot know what the response contains or how to recover from a bad path. Adequate to invoke, thin for interpreting results.

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 the schema already documents the single path parameter with the same '/users/:id' example. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the schema, so it sits at the 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a single page route') and scopes it by 'single' plus 'resolved URL path', which implicitly distinguishes it from list_routes. It never names list_routes or inspect_route_meta explicitly, so the sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 only implied: an agent can infer 'use this when you already have a route path and need details for one route.' There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of when to prefer inspect_route_meta or list_routes instead.

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