Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nexterm-mcp

nexterm-mcp

by X1pheR
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

nexterm_update_organization

Update an organization's name or description using its ID to keep Nexterm server records accurate and current.

Instructions

Update organization name or description.

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": {
      "organization_id": "<organization_id>"
    },
    "name": "nexterm_update_organization"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
descriptionNo
organization_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 readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no permission/role requirements, no statement about whether omitted fields are left unchanged or cleared, no error behavior for unknown organization_id.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Brevity is appropriate, though it edges toward under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 mutation tool with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the description should cover required identifiers, partial-update behavior, and permission expectations. None of that is present, leaving large gaps an agent must guess at.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden, yet it only echoes two field names already visible in the schema. It never explains that organization_id is the sole required parameter, or that name/description are nullable and default to null (i.e. partial-update semantics), and it gives no length constraints.

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 clear verb+resource ('Update organization') and names the two mutable fields, which distinguishes it from the sibling session-settings and audit-settings updaters. It stops short of stating scope (e.g. that it never touches members or settings).

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no alternatives offered (e.g. nexterm_update_organization_session_settings for settings vs this one for name/description). The agent must infer everything from the field list.

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