mcp-server-nuxt

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

inspect_layers

Resolve the full Nuxt extends hierarchy and return layers ordered by override priority, with each layer's config file, raw extends, and sub-layers.

Instructions

Resolve and return the full Nuxt extends hierarchy (layers). Returns layers ordered by override priority (project first), with each layer's config file, raw extends, and sub-layers.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "inspect_layers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context beyond the name: results are ordered by override priority with the project first, and each entry carries config file, raw extends, and sub-layers. It stops short of stating that this is a pure read with no side effects, or what happens when no layers exist.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the highest-value fact (ordering by override priority, project first) is stated up front. Nothing repeats the tool name or restates structured data.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return shape, and it does: per-layer config file, raw extends, and sub-layers in priority order. The only gap for a zero-param, no-annotation tool is edge-case behavior such as a project with no layers or unresolved extends.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. No parameter detail is missing because none exists.

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+resource pair: 'Resolve and return the full Nuxt extends hierarchy (layers).' That is concrete enough to separate it from read_config or get_project_overview, though it never names a sibling to contrast with, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 by the object of the description — an agent can infer it should call this when it needs the layer/extends chain rather than a single config file. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no exclusion pointing at read_config or get_project_overview as alternatives.

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