mcp-server-nuxt

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

inspect_route_meta

Retrieve a Nuxt route's params, middleware, layout, page meta, and component props, emits, and slots to understand route and page configuration.

Instructions

Inspect a single route: returns route params, middleware, layout, page meta plus the component props, emits and slots. Accepts a route path (e.g. /users/:id) or a page file path.

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": "inspect_route_meta"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Route path (e.g. /users/:id) or page file (e.g. pages/users/[id].vue)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does most of the work: 'returns ...' makes clear this is a non-mutating inspection, and it enumerates the returned surface (params, middleware, layout, meta, props, emits, slots). It also discloses the dual input mode. What it omits is failure behavior for unknown routes or files and whether resolution touches the filesystem or a build index.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return payload, then the accepted input forms. The dense comma list of returned fields is purposeful rather than padding — every item tells the agent what it will get back.

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 and no annotations, yet the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and both accepted path forms, which is enough to call the tool correctly. The remaining gap is relational context — nothing tells the agent how this differs from 'get_route' or 'list_routes' — plus no error-case behavior.

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 single 'path' parameter is already documented with the exact same examples the description gives ('/users/:id', page file paths). The description therefore adds no meaning beyond the schema and merely echoes it. Baseline 3 is the correct ceiling here.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Inspect a single route') and enumerates exactly what comes back: route params, middleware, layout, page meta, component props, emits and slots. That is far more informative than a restated name. It stops short of a 5 because it never differentiates itself from the sibling tools 'get_route' and 'list_routes', which an agent would reasonably confuse it with.

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 this is for per-route deep inspection because it says 'a single route' and lists rich metadata. The two accepted input forms (route path or page file path) are stated, which helps selection. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus 'get_route', no when-not-to-use, and no stated prerequisites, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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