Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nextcloud-agent

nextcloud-agent

by Knuckles-Team
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Enable app

nextcloud_enable_app

Enable an installed Nextcloud app by app ID to activate its features. Use it to turn on a specific app for the cloud instance.

Instructions

Enable one installed app.

POST /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_enable_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
app_idYes

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?

The annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the description only adds the raw endpoint path. It does not disclose that enabling is a server-wide, admin-level mutation, what effect it has on users, or why idempotentHint is false when re-enabling an enabled app would appear to be a no-op.

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 terse lines with the action stated first and no filler. The endpoint line consumes space without helping tool selection, but it is cheap and does not bury the purpose.

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 no output schema and an undocumented required parameter, the description should cover permissions, side effects, and identifier format. It supplies none of these, leaving the agent underspecified for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the single app_id parameter and adds nothing. It never says whether app_id is the app's machine name (e.g. "files", "calendar"), its display name, or a numeric ID, leaving the agent to guess the expected format.

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?

"Enable one installed app" gives a specific verb (enable) and resource (app), and the verb contrasts cleanly with the sibling nextcloud_disable_app. The scope qualifier "installed" usefully narrows the target set, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 states what the tool does but never when to use it versus nextcloud_disable_app, nextcloud_get_app, or nextcloud_list_apps. It also omits the precondition implied by "installed" — an app must already exist — and any permission requirement.

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