Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nexterm-mcp

nexterm-mcp

by X1pheR
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

nexterm_get_server_monitoring

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves monitoring history for a specified server entry, optionally limited to a 1h, 6h, or 24h time range.

Instructions

Get monitoring history for a server 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": {
      "target_id": "<target_id>"
    },
    "name": "nexterm_get_server_monitoring"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
target_idYes
time_rangeNo1h

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 fully cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so that burden is lifted. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond repeating 'monitoring history'—no mention of retention, pagination, or what the history contains, so it contributes little beyond the structured annotations.

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 wasted words. Appropriately brief, though brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 two-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description should carry more detail about parameter meaning and scope. It does not compensate, leaving the agent without enough information to call it correctly relative to sibling monitoring tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for both parameters. It only weakly implies target_id refers to a server entry and says nothing about the time_range enum (1h/6h/24h) or its default, leaving both parameters underspecified.

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 (get), resource (monitoring history), and scope (server entry), which lets an agent understand the basic purpose. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like nexterm_get_monitoring or nexterm_get_integration_monitoring, leaving ambiguity about which monitoring tool to pick.

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 the several other monitoring-related siblings (get_monitoring, get_integration_monitoring, get_monitoring_settings). The 'server entry' phrase hints at scope but does not explicitly route the agent away from alternatives.

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