Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nexterm-mcp

nexterm-mcp

by X1pheR
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

nexterm_delete_entry

Destructive

Permanently delete a Nexterm entry by its ID through the API, allowing removal of obsolete or unwanted server entries. Use it when an entry must be permanently removed.

Instructions

Permanently delete a Nexterm 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>"
    },
    "name": "nexterm_delete_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entry_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so "permanently" adds nothing structured data doesn't already say. The description is silent on cascading effects (e.g. tags, folder membership, sessions), required permissions, and whether the deletion is reversible or recoverable from backup.

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?

A single short sentence with the destructive qualifier front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a destructive tool.

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 an irreversible mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should explain the id, side effects, and error behavior. None of that is present, leaving the agent to infer everything from the name and annotations.

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% and the description never mentions entry_id. The parameter name is self-evident, but nothing states where the entry_id comes from (e.g. nexterm_list_entries or nexterm_get_entry) or what happens on an invalid or unknown id.

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 ("Permanently delete") and resource ("a Nexterm entry"), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from sibling deletion tools such as nexterm_delete_source, nexterm_delete_folder, or nexterm_delete_script.

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 tool versus nexterm_update_entry (which could clear fields) or the other delete_* siblings. The only caveat is the word "Permanently", which is not framed as a when/when-not rule.

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