nextcloud-mcp

upload_file

Save or update text files in Nextcloud by writing provided content to a path, creating the file if it doesn't exist or replacing it if it does.

Instructions

Create or overwrite a file in Nextcloud with the given text content.

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>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "upload_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Destination path relative to user root (e.g. 'Documents/notes.md')
`content`	Yes	Text content to write to the file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses the important overwrite behavior, which is a key safety aspect. Without annotations, this is the main behavioral trait an agent needs to know. However, it doesn't mention other potential behaviors like permission requirements or whether existing files are replaced atomically.

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 that states the action and target. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundant information.

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 only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it says what the tool does, that it can overwrite, and where it operates. It could mention behavior when parent folders don't exist, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (path and content), covering 100% of schema definitions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but it doesn't need to since the schema is self-explanatory.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb (create/overwrite) and resource (file in Nextcloud), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_note, but 'file' versus 'note' is implied and the action is distinct.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The tool's usage is implied by the description: you use it when you need to write text content to a file. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or any exclusions, such as whether it works for binary files or if parent directories must exist.

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