Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nexterm-mcp

nexterm-mcp

by X1pheR
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

nexterm_update_tag

Update a Nexterm tag by ID, changing its name or color to keep server labels accurate and organized.

Instructions

Update a Nexterm tag.

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": {
      "tag_id": "<tag_id>"
    },
    "name": "nexterm_update_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
colorNo
tag_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds nothing beyond them — no statement that unspecified fields are left unchanged, whether tag_id must exist first, or what happens on duplicate names.

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?

One short sentence, zero padding, front-loaded. But the brevity comes from 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?

A mutation tool with no output schema, no parameter documentation, and no annotation elaboration is under-described for an agent that must choose among ~80 Nexterm siblings. Only the required tag_id is discoverable from the schema.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for three parameters, yet it mentions none of them. It does not explain that tag_id identifies the target, that name/color are optional, or that null defaults imply a partial update.

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 sentence is essentially the tool name restated in prose: 'update' + 'tag'. It names no fields that can be changed (name, color) and does nothing to distinguish it from nexterm_create_tag, nexterm_delete_tag, or nexterm_assign_tag beyond the verb.

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 this tool applies versus the other tag siblings (assign_tag, unassign_tag, delete_tag, create_tag). The agent must infer scope from the name alone.

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