mcp-server-nuxt

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_modules

Lists Nuxt modules from nuxt.config and package.json with version, active/inactive status, and source so you can identify available features and filter by status.

Instructions

List Nuxt modules discovered from nuxt.config and package.json, with version, status (active/inactive) and source. Use this to understand which Nuxt features are available.

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": "list_modules"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No	Filter by module status

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, but the word 'List' and the discovery sources strongly imply a read-only operation. The description adds useful return-field context (version, status, source) but does not state whether there are side effects, permission requirements, or behavior for missing config files.

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 compact sentences front-load the sources and returned data, then give the intended use. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers sources, returned fields, and purpose. It could mention edge cases such as projects without Nuxt config or how inactive modules are discovered, but those are minor gaps.

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%, so the optional status enum is already documented as a filter. The description mentions status as an output field but does not clarify that the parameter filters results, so it adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'List Nuxt modules discovered from nuxt.config and package.json.' It also names the returned fields, so the tool is clearly distinguishable from add_nuxt_module and config-editing siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a clear intended use: 'Use this to understand which Nuxt features are available.' It does not state when not to use it or name an alternative for related tasks, so it falls short of a full routing recommendation.

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