Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nexterm-mcp

nexterm-mcp

by X1pheR
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

nexterm_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verifies authenticated Nexterm API access and reports adapter status without exposing credentials.

Instructions

Verify authenticated Nexterm API access and report adapter status without exposing credentials.

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_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
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 elsewhere. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail — that credentials are not exposed — plus the notion that it reports 'adapter status', but it says nothing about failure modes or the shape of the report.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary action (verify access) and appends the secondary behavior (report adapter status). Nothing is padded or repeated.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough to call the tool correctly. Its only gap is that it doesn't hint at what the status report looks like or what a failure means, which would help an agent interpret the result.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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?

The description names a specific action (verify authenticated API access) and a specific output (adapter status), which is clearly distinct from the CRUD/resource siblings in this server. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so differentiation comes from the subject matter rather than a stated boundary.

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: 'verify authenticated access' suggests a pre-flight or diagnostic check, but the description never states when to call it (e.g., before other tools, after an auth failure) or when not to. No alternative is named, though no sibling duplicates this function.

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