nextcloud-mcp

get_note_content

Retrieve the full content of a note by its ID within Nextcloud. Access the note's text for reading or processing.

Instructions

Get the full content of a specific note by ID

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": {
      "noteId": "<noteId>"
    },
    "name": "get_note_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`noteId`	Yes

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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'get full content', which conveys a read operation, but does not disclose what happens if the note ID does not exist, the return format, or any access restrictions. For a simple get-by-ID, this is minimally adequate but could be richer.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value: 'full content', 'specific note', 'by ID' all contribute to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core need: it tells the agent that given a note ID, it retrieves the full content. It does not describe the exact return structure (e.g., whether it includes metadata), but given the simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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 only parameter, noteId, is given meaning by 'by ID' in the description, but the schema itself has no description for noteId. With 0% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates; it confirms noteId is the ID of the note but does not explain the ID type or source beyond the numeric type in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool gets the full content of a note by ID, using a specific verb (get) and resource (note content). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_notes, implying get_notes lists metadata while this retrieves full content.

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 implies usage when you need the full content of a specific note, identified by its ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of siblings (e.g., get_notes) provides enough differentiation for typical selection.

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