mcp-server-nuxt

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_server_routes

Lists Nitro API routes, middleware, and plugins, including paths, handler files, HTTP methods, and middleware chains, to map a Nuxt project's server/API surface.

Instructions

List all Nitro server API routes, middleware, and plugins. Returns route path, handler file, HTTP method, and middleware chain. Use this to understand the server/API surface of the project.

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_server_routes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No	Filter by route kind

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?

With no annotations present, the description carries full behavioral burden. It partially discharges that by disclosing the return shape (route path, handler file, HTTP method, middleware chain), but says nothing about whether the filesystem is scanned, ordering, pagination, or cost of the call.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed, then what is returned, then when to use it. Every sentence adds information and none repeats the tool name or schema.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description rightly describes the return fields, which is the main thing an agent needs. For a zero-required-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with only minor omissions around the type filter and result ordering.

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 optional enum parameter is documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description never mentions the 'type' filter, missing a cheap opportunity to clarify that the listing can be narrowed to api, middleware, or plugin.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List all Nitro server API routes, middleware, and plugins') and names the returned fields. The 'Nitro server' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling list_routes (page routes), but the distinction is never stated 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?

It offers one usage context ('Use this to understand the server/API surface of the project'), which is helpful but leaves the dense sibling set unexplored. There is no guidance on when to prefer get_route, inspect_route_meta, or list_routes instead, and no exclusions.

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