Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nextcloud-agent

nextcloud-agent

by Knuckles-Team
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Get app

nextcloud_get_app
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve metadata for a specific installed Nextcloud app, including its name, version, and dependencies, by app ID.

Instructions

Read one installed app's metadata (name, version, dependencies).

GET /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_get_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
app_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete HTTP endpoint and the set of metadata fields returned, which is useful, but says nothing about error behavior for unknown app IDs or permissions required to read app metadata.

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?

One front-loaded sentence covers purpose and return fields with no waste. The raw endpoint line adds minor routing value but is largely implementation detail an agent cannot act on.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description's enumeration of returned metadata fields carries the return-value burden well. For a one-parameter read tool this is enough to call it correctly, with only app_id format left slightly underspecified.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single app_id parameter, so the description must compensate. The URL template shows app_id is a path segment, but it never explains the expected format (e.g. 'files', 'calendar') or how to obtain a valid ID.

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 ('Read one installed app's metadata') and enumerates the returned fields (name, version, dependencies). It distinguishes itself implicitly from nextcloud_list_apps by the 'one' framing, but never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call it when you need metadata for a single known app. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of using nextcloud_list_apps to discover app IDs first, and no prerequisites stated.

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