nextcloud-mcp

update_deck_card

Update a card's title, description, or due date in Nextcloud Deck. Provide the board, stack, and card IDs to target the specific card.

Instructions

Update an existing Deck card's title, description, or due date.

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": {
      "boardId": "<boardId>",
      "stackId": "<stackId>",
      "cardId": "<cardId>"
    },
    "name": "update_deck_card"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No	New title (optional)
`cardId`	Yes	Card ID
`boardId`	Yes	Board ID
`dueDate`	No	New due date YYYY-MM-DD, or null to clear (optional)
`stackId`	Yes	Stack (column) ID the card currently belongs to
`description`	No	New description (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, whether null values clear fields, or what happens to unspecified fields. The only extra cue is 'existing,' which is already implied by 'update.'

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, focused sentence that directly states the action and scope. It contains no filler, redundant phrases, or unnecessary context energy.

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?

For a mutation tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-line description is insufficient. It does not cover return values, error cases, prerequisites (e.g., card existence), or the effect on other fields, leaving the agent without enough functional context.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description merely restates the updatable fields (title, description, due date) without adding details like the null-to-clear behavior for dueDate, which is already present 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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and clearly identifies the resource ('an existing Deck card') and the mutable fields ('title, description, or due date'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_deck_card and move_deck_card.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives, such as create_deck_card or move_deck_card. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the usage context entirely implicit.

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