Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nexterm-mcp

nexterm-mcp

by X1pheR
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

nexterm_duplicate_entry

Duplicates an existing Nexterm entry using its entry ID, enabling configuration reuse without manual recreation.

Instructions

Duplicate an existing 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_duplicate_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 readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotent, so safety is partially covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether the duplicate gets a modified name, whether secrets are copied, where it is placed, or what is returned — all critical for a mutation tool with openWorldHint=true.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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, one undocumented parameter, and only coarse annotations, the description should carry substantial weight — but it gives none of the mutation semantics (naming, contents, placement, return value) an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 says nothing about entry_id — not what entity it refers to (entry vs source vs folder), nor what happens if it does not exist. The parameter name is self-explanatory but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Duplicate') and resource ('Nexterm entry'), which is clear and verb-accurate. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like nexterm_create_entry or nexterm_update_entry, nor say what aspect of the entry is duplicated.

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 duplicate versus nexterm_create_entry, no prerequisites, and no note about what the copy inherits (credentials, tags, folder placement). The agent is left to infer everything about selection.

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