Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nexterm-mcp

nexterm-mcp

by X1pheR
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

nexterm_list_themes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists available Nexterm themes so you can identify valid theme options before configuring a server entry.

Instructions

List available Nexterm themes.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "nexterm_list_themes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds nothing further — no note on what 'available' means (all themes vs. user-visible), ordering, or return shape — so with annotations carrying the load this is adequate but thin.

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, appropriate for a trivial list operation. It is efficient but so sparse that it borders on under-specification.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what a 'theme' record contains (id, name, active flag) and whether the response is paginated; it says none of this. For a trivial zero-param list tool the gap is minor, but it is a real gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, which is consistent with the EmptyInput schema, so there is nothing to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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?

Clear verb ('List') plus resource ('Nexterm themes'), and the list-vs-get distinction against siblings like nexterm_get_theme and nexterm_get_active_theme_css is apparent from the verb. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: 'list available' suggests discovery/enumeration before calling get_theme, but no when-to-use, exclusions, or sibling routing is stated. An agent can infer the intent from the name, but the description adds no guidance.

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