Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nexterm-mcp

nexterm-mcp

by X1pheR
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

nexterm_delete_folder

Destructive

Permanently deletes a Nexterm folder by ID, applying Nexterm's folder deletion semantics.

Instructions

Permanently delete a Nexterm folder according to Nexterm's folder deletion semantics.

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": {
      "folder_id": "<folder_id>"
    },
    "name": "nexterm_delete_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
folder_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is an irreversible write. The description reinforces permanence but adds nothing concrete — it does not say whether child folders or contained entries are also removed, which is the critical behavioral unknown for a folder delete.

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 sentence with no filler in the front-loaded portion, but the closing clause 'according to Nexterm's folder deletion semantics' is opaque padding that does not earn its place.

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 destructive folder operation with no output schema and no annotation detail on cascade behavior, the description should state what is destroyed (children, contained entries) and any prerequisites. It instead defers to unspecified 'semantics', leaving the agent unable to predict the impact.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter folder_id is never mentioned in the description. The schema's field name and type are largely self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about which folder identifier is expected or how to obtain it.

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 ('Nexterm folder'), clearly distinguishable from sibling deletes like nexterm_delete_entry or nexterm_delete_source by resource. The trailing clause 'according to Nexterm's folder deletion semantics' adds no concrete meaning about scope, but the core action 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus nexterm_update_folder or the entry-level deletes, and no stated preconditions (e.g., must be empty, must own the folder). The phrase 'deletion semantics' gestures at rules without stating them.

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