Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nextcloud-agent

nextcloud-agent

by Knuckles-Team
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Get contact

nextcloud_get_contact
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch one Nextcloud contact using a contact URL and return parsed fields, ETag, and raw vCard for contact lookup or synchronization.

Instructions

Read one contact: parsed fields, etag and the raw vCard.

GET /remote.php/dav/addressbooks/users/{user}/{book}/{contact}.vcf

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": {
      "contact_url": "<contact_url>"
    },
    "name": "nextcloud_get_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contact_urlYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (parsed fields, etag, raw vCard) and the underlying DAV endpoint, which tells the agent this returns both structured and raw representations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short lines, front-loaded with the verb and payload, followed by an optional endpoint reference. Nothing is redundant.

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?

For a simple single-record read with no output schema, the description covers what comes back and how the resource is addressed. The only gap is that the one required parameter is never explained, which matters at 0% schema coverage.

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?

The single parameter has zero schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. The embedded path template hints that contact_url is a DAV .vcf resource path, but it never states the expected format, whether it is absolute or relative, or where to obtain it (e.g., from nextcloud_list_contacts).

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?

"Read one contact" gives a specific verb plus resource and the enumeration (parsed fields, etag, raw vCard) makes the payload concrete. It doesn't name the sibling it must not be confused with (nextcloud_list_contacts / nextcloud_get_card), though the word "one" implies a single-record read.

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 by the get-vs-list contrast; there is no explicit statement such as "use this when you already have a contact URL, otherwise call nextcloud_list_contacts". No prerequisites or failure conditions are given.

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