Skip to main content
Glama

nexterm_update_snippet

Update an existing Nexterm command snippet's name, command, description, OS filter, or organization to keep saved commands accurate and reusable.

Instructions

Update a Nexterm command snippet.

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": {
      "snippet_id": "<snippet_id>"
    },
    "name": "nexterm_update_snippet"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
commandNo
os_filterNo
snippet_idYes
descriptionNo
organization_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
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, so the description carries a lower burden, but it still contributes nothing. It does not disclose what fields may be partially updated, how null defaults behave, whether omitted fields are preserved, or what permissions are needed.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The single sentence is short but under-specified rather than concise; it conveys no actionable information. There is nothing front-loaded beyond the tautological restatement of the name.

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

Completeness1/5

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

A mutation tool with 6 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema demands far more explanation. The description leaves an agent unable to determine update semantics, which fields map to what, or the effect of null defaults on a partial update.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Fields like os_filter, organization_id, and description receive no explanation of meaning or interaction anywhere in the definition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Update a Nexterm command snippet' restates the tool name almost verbatim and adds no distinguishing detail. It does not say what aspects of the snippet are updatable or how it differs from siblings like nexterm_update_script, nexterm_reposition_snippet, or nexterm_delete_snippet.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, no partial-vs-full update semantics, and no routing to siblings such as nexterm_get_snippet (to read) or nexterm_reposition_snippet (for ordering).

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