nextcloud-mcp

get_file

Retrieve file content from Nextcloud to read and process data. Supports text-based files such as markdown, JSON, CSV, and txt.

Instructions

Download and return the content of a file from Nextcloud. Best suited for text files (markdown, txt, csv, json, etc.).

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "get_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	File path relative to user root (e.g. 'Documents/notes.md')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation ('Download and return') and notes a limitation (best for text files), but does not explicitly state that it does not modify the file, or address potential issues with binary files. It is adequate but leaves some behavioral aspects implicit.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, with the primary action stated first and no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers its purpose, usage, and return value ('content of a file'). It does not mention error conditions, but that is not critical for such a straightforward operation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The single parameter 'path' is fully described in the schema with an example. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Download and return') and resource ('content of a file from Nextcloud'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_files or upload_file. It states exactly what the tool does without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear guidance by stating it is 'Best suited for text files', implying when to use it and hinting that binary files may not work well. It does not explicitly mention alternatives for non-text files, but the context is clear enough for basic usage decisions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.