Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nexterm-mcp

nexterm-mcp

by X1pheR
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

nexterm_update_backup_settings

Configure backup schedule, retention, and included data types such as logs, database, and recordings for Nexterm.

Instructions

Update Nexterm backup schedule and inclusion settings.

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_update_backup_settings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
retentionNo
include_logsNo
include_databaseNo
schedule_intervalNo
include_recordingsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partially covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the domain, such as whether partial updates are supported, how null parameters behave, or what permissions are required.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with the resource and action front-loaded. There is no wasted text.

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?

This is a mutation tool with five undocumented parameters and no output schema. The description is far too sparse to tell an agent how to invoke it correctly, especially regarding retention, null defaults, and partial-update semantics.

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% for 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only broadly alludes to 'schedule' and 'inclusion settings', leaving retention completely unmentioned and providing no meaning for schedule interval units, boolean effects, or null/default behavior.

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 ('Update') and resource ('Nexterm backup schedule and inclusion settings'), making the purpose clear and distinguishable from sibling read tools like nexterm_get_backup_settings. It does not explicitly name a sibling 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 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_get_backup_settings or nexterm_create_backup, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage cue is the generic implication of 'Update', which is not enough.

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