mcp-server-nuxt

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_code

Search Nuxt project source files by substring or regex to return matching files with line and column numbers plus surrounding context lines.

Instructions

Search project source files for a substring or regex. Returns matching files with line/column numbers and surrounding context lines.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	Yes	Substring or regex to search for
`fileTypes`	No	Optional file extensions, e.g. ["vue", "ts"]
`maxResults`	No	Maximum number of results (default 50)

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, the description carries the full burden and does useful work by disclosing the return shape (matching files with line/column and surrounding context lines), which signals a read-only operation. It omits material behavior: regex flavor/syntax, case sensitivity, whether ignored files or dependencies are searched, and any result-size or performance limits.

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 tight sentences: the action and scope come first, the return shape second. No filler, no repetition of the schema, and it reads well when front-loaded in an agent's context.

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 search tool with a fully documented three-parameter schema, the definition covers what the tool does and what it returns without needing an output schema. The remaining gaps (regex semantics, case sensitivity) are modest but real for an agent composing a query.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the default of 50 for maxResults and the extension examples for fileTypes. The description adds nothing beyond restating that a query is a substring or regex, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('search') and resource ('project source files') plus the accepted match modes (substring or regex). The purpose is unambiguous and no sibling tool offers code search, but the description never names or contrasts those siblings (e.g., get_project_overview) to steer selection.

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 the tool for locating text across source files, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or suggested alternative among the many inspect_* and list_* siblings.

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