I am in entire sympathy with this concern. But there are difficulties.
English grammatical terminology is in crisis. The rapid and rapidly accelerating change which formal study of English has undergone in the last century has led to a vast proliferation of competing terminologies, and many of the most central terms have different meanings for different grammarians. This isn't just a matter of conflict between Ancients and Moderns, between the traditional Latin-based and contemporary linguistics-based analyses; it's also a matter of conflict between opposed contemporary schools. And this situation is exacerbated by the fact that few teachers of English (to either native or non-native speakers) are rigorously trained in any of these grammars; they pick up scraps and orts of terminology at third or fourth hand and use whatever addresses their immediate pedagogical needs.
The upshot is that no glossary is going to secure universal assent. The best you can hope for is something like the Linguistics Association of Great Britain's Grammatical terminology recommended by the LAGB for use in schools, 2014. This document frankly acknowledges that it has to be
an exercise in compromise: compromise between the needs of schools [...] and those of universities, and compromise among proponents of different approaches to grammar.
It has an entire page laying out “controversial assumptions” [my emphasis] about the meaning and treatment of key terms like phrase, phrase classes, noun phrases, specifier, determiner, genitive, pronoun, clause, complement, tense, aspect, conjunction—and individual entries still must discriminate carefully between rival understandings and uses. The article on clause, for instance, ends on the caveat that “in spite of its central role in grammar, the notion 'clause' is problematic in relation to other grammatical concepts”, and goes on for three paragraphs sketching some of these problems.
The entire document runs nearly 30,000 words—66 pages of 12-point TNR in the .pdf.
It's an admirable document; I don't think we can do any better. But would it meet our need? —and could our Answerers be brought to use it?