Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nexterm-mcp

nexterm-mcp

by X1pheR
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

nexterm_assign_tag

Assigns a tag to a Nexterm entry using the entry ID and tag ID, enabling organized categorization through the Nexterm MCP server.

Instructions

Assign a tag to an entry.

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": {
      "entry_id": "<entry_id>",
      "tag_id": "<tag_id>"
    },
    "name": "nexterm_assign_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tag_idYes
entry_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the safety bar is lower. However, the description adds nothing beyond them — no word on whether assigning an already-assigned tag errors or is a no-op, despite idempotentHint=false, and no mention of permission requirements.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than tight craftsmanship.

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?

For a write operation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should explain ID provenance, duplicate-assignment behavior, and reversal (unassign_tag). None of that is present.

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%: tag_id and entry_id are bare integers with only minimum constraints, and the description gives no semantics for either. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap, leaving the agent to guess where these IDs come from (list_entries, list_tags).

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 ('assign') and resource ('tag to an entry'), which cleanly distinguishes it from nexterm_unassign_tag and nexterm_delete_tag. No explicit sibling naming, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus nexterm_unassign_tag or nexterm_list_entry_tags, and no prerequisites such as whether the entry and tag must already exist. The agent must infer the workflow from sibling names alone.

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