mcp-server-nuxt

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

read_config

Retrieve the resolved Nuxt configuration or a specific dot-notation key, such as runtimeConfig.public.apiBase, to inspect app settings without loading the full config.

Instructions

Read the resolved Nuxt config, or a single key by dot-notation (e.g. runtimeConfig.public.apiBase). Omit the key to return the whole config.

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": "read_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	No	Dot-notation config key to read

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the config is 'resolved' (i.e. merged/computed rather than raw source), which is real behavioral context, but it says nothing about whether runtimeConfig values may include secrets or how large the full-config response is.

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 primary action and followed by the parameter behavior. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, this covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The only gap is that it does not hint at the return shape (a value vs. a full config object), which is minor.

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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by giving a concrete dot-notation example (runtimeConfig.public.apiBase) and stating the default behavior when the key is omitted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the resolved Nuxt config') and immediately clarifies the two modes: whole config or a single key. An agent can distinguish it from update_config purely from the verb and scope.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to select each mode: supply a dot-notation key for one value, omit the key for the whole config. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the read-vs-update split with the sibling is self-evident.

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