nextcloud-agent

Create group

nextcloud_create_group

Creates a Nextcloud group from a unique group ID, with an optional display name for organizing users and managing access.

Instructions

Create one group.

POST /ocs/v2.php/cloud/groups

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": {
      "group_id": "<group_id>"
    },
    "name": "nextcloud_create_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`group_id`	Yes
`display_name`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv3.0.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a raw endpoint string. It says nothing about required admin privileges, whether creation fails or is silently no-op on an existing group_id (non-idempotent), or what happens to display_name defaults.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Two short lines with no wasted words, and the action is front-loaded. However, the second line is a bare OCS endpoint reference that adds little for an agent and occupies the space where actual guidance should be.

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?

A non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage needs to explain prerequisites, duplicate handling, and parameter roles. None of that is present, so the definition is thin relative to the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter meaning at all. It never explains that group_id is the machine identifier versus display_name being a human-readable label, nor whether display_name defaults to group_id when null. With 2 undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate.

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+resource: "Create one group." This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like nextcloud_create_user, nextcloud_add_user_to_group, and nextcloud_delete_group. It lacks differentiation from nothing else in particular, but the singular noun is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. It does not say whether the group must not already exist, what happens on duplicate group_id, or how it relates to nextcloud_add_user_to_group (which requires a group to exist first). The agent must infer everything about invocation context.

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

Deploy Server