Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nextcloud-agent

nextcloud-agent

by Knuckles-Team
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Disable app

nextcloud_disable_app
DestructiveIdempotent

Disables a specified Nextcloud app by its ID. Requires explicit confirmation because this is a destructive operation.

Instructions

Disable one app.

DELETE /ocs/v2.php/cloud/apps/{app_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": {
      "app_id": "<app_id>"
    },
    "name": "nextcloud_disable_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
app_idYes
confirmNoExplicitly confirm this destructive operation. Needed only when the client cannot answer a confirmation prompt.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the raw DELETE endpoint, not what disabling actually does to the app's data, active sessions, or dependent apps, and does not mention the admin permission likely required.

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?

Two short lines, verb-first, with the endpoint detail second. Nothing is padded, though the brevity leaves obvious gaps rather than being genuinely complete.

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 destructive, admin-level mutation with no output schema and a partially documented schema, the description should say what state changes and what confirms success. It leaves the agent to guess at side effects and permission requirements.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 50%: confirm is documented inline, but app_id has no description at all. The URL template {app_id} hints that the value is an app identifier rather than a display name, but the description gives no format, naming convention, or example to compensate for the undocumented required parameter.

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?

"Disable one app" states a specific verb and resource, and the DELETE endpoint line confirms this is a state mutation against a named app. The sibling set contains nextcloud_enable_app, and the verb distinguishes the two without needing the schema.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus nextcloud_enable_app or how to handle the confirm flag before an irreversible change. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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