Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
laravel13-livewire4.2.1-mcp

laravel13-livewire4.2.1-mcp

by shamimlaravel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

generate_chart_widget

Create Livewire dashboard widgets with stats, charts, and real-time updates by specifying widget type, metrics, and refresh interval.

Instructions

Generate a Livewire dashboard chart/widget component with stats, charts, and real-time updates.

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": {
      "widgetType": "<widgetType>"
    },
    "name": "generate_chart_widget"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNoWidget
layoutNolayouts.dashboard
metricsNo
modelClassNo
widgetTypeYes
refreshIntervalNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only describes the output type without mentioning side effects, prerequisites (e.g., existing Livewire project), or whether it creates/overwrites files. The term 'generate' implies file creation but nothing is explicit.

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?

One sentence with no fluff; it's as concise as possible. However, the conciseness comes at the expense of necessary information, affecting other dimensions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, yet the description omits any details about how to configure the widget, the meaning of widgetType enums, or how metrics are structured. This is insufficient for an AI agent to select appropriate arguments.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate. It only vaguely references 'stats' and 'real-time updates' which hint at metrics and refreshInterval, but it doesn't explain any parameter semantics, shapes, or how to choose widgetType.

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 clearly states the tool generates a Livewire dashboard chart/widget component with stats, charts, and real-time updates, which distinguishes it from general component generators like generate_livewire_component. The verb 'generate' and the specific resource are clear.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as generate_livewire_component, generate_crud_component, or generate_data_table. No alternative tools are mentioned, and no context is given for when a chart widget is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools