Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nexterm-mcp

nexterm-mcp

by X1pheR
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

nexterm_unassign_tag

Remove a tag assignment from a Nexterm entry using entry and tag IDs, enabling you to correct or clean up entry categorization.

Instructions

Remove a tag assignment from an 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>",
      "tag_id": "<tag_id>"
    },
    "name": "nexterm_unassign_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tag_idYes
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic purpose: it does not explain what happens if the assignment is absent, whether permissions are required, or what the response contains.

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?

The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the action and target. It is efficient, though somewhat under-specified for the tool's needs.

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 mutation with 0% parameter description coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral details needed when annotations cannot carry the full burden.

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 both entry_id and tag_id are required but undocumented in the schema. The description implies that an entry and tag are involved but does not map these to the required integer parameters or explain their constraints beyond the minimum value in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: removing a tag assignment from an entry. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like nexterm_assign_tag and nexterm_list_entry_tags, though it does not explicitly name alternatives for routing.

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 tool versus nexterm_assign_tag, nexterm_update_tag, or other tag-related siblings. It also omits prerequisites such as whether the entry or tag must already exist.

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