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

laravel13-livewire4.2.1-mcp

by shamimlaravel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

generate_layout

Generate Blade layout files for Laravel 13, including base, app, guest, admin, tenant, auth, dashboard, and error page variants.

Instructions

Generate a Laravel 13 Blade layout file (base, app, guest, admin, tenant, auth, dashboard, error).

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": {
      "layoutType": "<layoutType>"
    },
    "name": "generate_layout"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoapp
layoutTypeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions only that it generates a file but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing files, where the file is created, or any other side effects. This lacks transparency for a file-generation action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence and highly concise. However, the parenthetical list introduces ambiguity (e.g., 'error' vs the error codes), preventing a perfect score.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the 'name' parameter, the relationship between name and layoutType, or the actual output file behavior, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 must compensate. It lists some layoutType values (base, app, guest, etc.) but omits error403, error404, error500, and includes a vague 'error' not in the enum. It also provides no explanation for the 'name' parameter, leaving its purpose unclear.

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 Laravel 13 Blade layout file, with a specific verb and resource. It lists several layout types, which helps distinguish it from other generate tools, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or note the missing error variants.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. The description offers no context about prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios where generating a layout 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