Skip to main content
Glama

Create conversation

nextcloud_create_conversation

Create a Nextcloud Talk conversation with a name and type (group, public, or one-to-one), optionally inviting a user for a direct chat.

Instructions

Create one conversation and return it with its token.

POST /ocs/v2.php/apps/spreed/api/v4/room

group is private (members only, no link); public can be joined by link; one_to_one needs invite (a user 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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "nextcloud_create_conversation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
inviteNo
room_typeNogroup

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare the write and non-idempotent nature, so the description's main additions are the returned token and the privacy semantics per room type. It omits required permissions, whether creation notifies or adds anybody, and what happens on duplicate names, which matters for a non-idempotent open-world mutation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the action and its return value, followed by the room-type semantics. The raw endpoint line adds little for an agent but is short and harmless.

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?

With no output schema, mentioning the returned token is valuable, and the room-type semantics cover the only non-obvious parameter. Missing permission and side-effect details keep it from being fully complete for a non-idempotent creation tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does well for room_type and invite by explaining the enum meanings and the invite dependency. The required 'name' parameter is left unexplained, which is the main gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create one conversation') and names what it returns (the token), which lets an agent distinguish it from nextcloud_list_conversations or nextcloud_get_conversation. It does not explicitly name a sibling or exclusion, so it falls short of the top tier.

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?

Gives concrete selection guidance among the room_type values: 'group' is members-only with no link, 'public' is link-joinable, and 'one_to_one' requires an invite user id. That is real when-to-use information, though it says nothing about prerequisites such as permissions or when to prefer this over other creation tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools