Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nexterm-mcp

nexterm-mcp

by X1pheR
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

nexterm_create_tag

Create a tag in Nexterm with a name and color to organize and filter server entries through the MCP server.

Instructions

Create a Nexterm tag.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "color": "<color>"
    },
    "name": "nexterm_create_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
colorYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (mutation, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world), so the description owes extra context. It provides none — no mention of duplicate-name behavior, scope (organization vs global), or what the caller gets back.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — the single sentence conveys only what the tool name already conveys.

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?

With no output schema and zero parameter documentation, an agent cannot tell what the color format is, whether the new tag is returned, or whether creation fails on duplicates. The description does nothing to fill these gaps.

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% for both required parameters, so the description must compensate. It never explains that 'name' identifies the tag or that 'color' presumably expects a specific format (e.g., hex), leaving an agent to guess.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear verb and resource ('Create a ... tag'), which is enough to know the basic operation. But it adds nothing to distinguish it from siblings like nexterm_update_tag, nexterm_assign_tag, or nexterm_list_tags beyond the obvious verb.

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 indication of when to use this versus nexterm_update_tag (e.g., whether tag names must be unique, and whether a failed create should fall back to update/assign). No prerequisites or context given.

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