Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nexterm-mcp

nexterm-mcp

by X1pheR
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

nexterm_delete_snippet

Destructive

Permanently deletes a Nexterm snippet by its snippet ID, optionally scoped to an organization. Use it to remove stored snippets that are no longer needed.

Instructions

Permanently delete a Nexterm snippet.

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": {
      "snippet_id": "<snippet_id>"
    },
    "name": "nexterm_delete_snippet"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
snippet_idYes
organization_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The word 'Permanently' reinforces irreversibility, but the description says nothing about cascade effects, whether the snippet must belong to a given organization, or what happens on a nonexistent id.

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 no filler, which is structurally sound. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than economy — there was room for a clause on organization scoping without becoming verbose.

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 two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description does not supply enough for confident invocation. It never explains what organization_id does or what a failed delete looks like, leaving real gaps given the 0% schema coverage.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds nothing about either parameter. The role of organization_id (default null) — whether it scopes the lookup, implies a permission check, or can be omitted — is left completely undocumented.

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 ('delete') and resource ('Nexterm snippet'), which cleanly separates it from nexterm_update_snippet and nexterm_get_snippet in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus nexterm_update_snippet (to clear content) or how it relates to snippet sources. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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