Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nexterm-mcp

nexterm-mcp

by X1pheR
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

nexterm_update_source

Update an existing Nexterm content source by ID, changing its name, URL, or enabled status to correct or adjust source configuration.

Instructions

Update a Nexterm content source.

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": {
      "source_id": "<source_id>"
    },
    "name": "nexterm_update_source"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNo
nameNo
enabledNo
source_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
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 safety and idempotency profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that - it does not say whether partial updates are allowed, what happens to omitted fields, or what permission/validation constraints apply.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short sentence with no padding, so nothing is wasted. But the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient information density.

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?

Given a mutation tool with no output schema, zero schema description coverage, and four parameters, the description is far too thin - an agent cannot determine patch semantics or field meanings from it. It needs to carry more weight than a one-line restatement.

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 four parameters (url, name, enabled, source_id). The description does not mention any of them, so an agent gets no meaning for what 'update' touches or how nullable fields are interpreted (e.g., null vs omission).

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

Purpose3/5

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

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (Nexterm content source), which does nominally separate it from update_entry, update_script, or update_snippet. However, it gives no indication of what aspects of a source are updatable, leaving the purpose at the vaguest viable level.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as nexterm_validate_source, nexterm_sync_source, nexterm_get_source, or nexterm_delete_source. The update-vs-validate-vs-sync distinction is entirely left to inference.

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