mcp-server-nuxt

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_config

Change a Nuxt config value using a dot-notation key, returning a diff; dry-run is default, and real writes require server write authorization.

Instructions

Update a nuxt.config value by dot-notation key. Returns a diff of the change. Dry-run by default; real writes require the server to be started with write authorization.

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": {
      "key": "<key>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "update_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`key`	Yes	Dot-notation config key, e.g. ssr or runtimeConfig.public.apiBase
`value`	Yes	New value as JSON or a JS expression, e.g. "false" or "'https://api.example.com'"
`dryRun`	No	When true (default), return the planned change without writing

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, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does real work: it discloses that dry-run is the default, that real writes require the server to be started with write authorization, and that the response is a diff. It stops short of stating whether writes are reversible, whether a backup is made, or whether the config file's formatting/comments are preserved.

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 with zero waste: what it does, what it returns, and the safety gate. The critical dry-run/write-authorization constraint is front-loaded enough to be read before the agent commits to a call.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: the write gate, the default safe mode, and the diff-shaped return. The remaining gap is failure/irreversibility semantics, which is a modest omission rather than a blocking one.

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 all three parameters carry their own descriptions, including examples for key and value, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes the dot-notation concept already in the schema and adds no syntax or format guidance beyond it; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Update a nuxt.config value by dot-notation key') and adds a return-value clause ('Returns a diff of the change'). The sibling set includes read_config, and the 'update' verb implicitly separates it from that reader, but the description never names read_config, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 context is only implied: the dry-run default and the write-authorization prerequisite signal that this is a guarded mutation, which nudges an agent toward cautious use. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no reference to read_config as the non-mutating alternative for inspecting values.

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