Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nexterm-mcp

nexterm-mcp

by X1pheR
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

nexterm_delete_tag

Destructive

Permanently deletes a Nexterm tag by its ID, removing it from the server's tag list.

Instructions

Permanently delete 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": {
      "tag_id": "<tag_id>"
    },
    "name": "nexterm_delete_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tag_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
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 safety profile is covered structurally. The description's only contribution is the word 'Permanently', which reinforces but does not extend the annotation. It says nothing about cascading effects on entries carrying the tag or authorization requirements, which would be genuinely additive.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is close to too terse given the destructive nature, but from a pure structure standpoint nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, an agent would want to know the effect on existing tag assignments and the failure mode for a nonexistent tag id. Annotations carry the mutability signal and the description is not misleading, but the destructive side effects are under-described.

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?

The single parameter tag_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and it does not — tag_id is never mentioned, nor is the integer/minimum-1 constraint or how to obtain a valid tag id (e.g. via nexterm_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?

Specific verb (delete) plus resource (Nexterm tag), and the word 'Permanently' signals irreversibility. It distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools (delete_entry, delete_source, delete_folder) by resource name, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with nexterm_update_tag or nexterm_unassign_tag.

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 (removing a tag from an entry but keeping the tag) or nexterm_update_tag. It also doesn't state prerequisites, e.g. whether tags still assigned to entries can be deleted or what happens to those assignments.

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