mcp-server-nuxt

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

inspect_component

Fetch detailed metadata for a single Nuxt component using its auto-imported name, including prop types, slots, emits, and script setup details.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a single component by its auto-imported name (e.g. BaseButton): props types, slots, emits, and script setup details.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_component"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Auto-imported component name, e.g. BaseButton

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose the shape of what comes back (props, slots, emits, script setup), which signals a read-only introspection, but it says nothing about error behavior for an unknown component name, whether type info is resolved or raw, or any performance/caching characteristics.

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 sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with the return fields enumerated compactly at the end. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the identifier format and enumerates the return contents. Only the failure mode for an unresolved name is left uncovered.

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 coverage is 100% for the single "name" parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the auto-imported-name constraint and the BaseButton-style example that the schema already provides, adding no new semantics such as case sensitivity or path-vs-name forms.

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 uses a specific verb ("Get detailed information") plus a precise resource ("a single component") and lists the returned facets: props types, slots, emits, script setup details. The word "single" implicitly distinguishes it from list_components, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 – call this when you need the API surface of one known component – but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives such as list_components (to discover names) or get_type_info (for deeper typing). The agent must infer the workflow.

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