nextcloud-agent

Update contact

nextcloud_update_contact

Idempotent

Update a single Nextcloud contact by URL, changing only the fields you provide while preserving omitted values and using the contact ETag to prevent overwrite conflicts.

Instructions

Change one contact; omitted fields keep their value. Guarded by the etag.

PUT /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_update_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`title`	No
`emails`	No
`phones`	No
`full_name`	No
`contact_url`	Yes
`organization`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv3.0.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing patch semantics (omitted fields preserved) and an optimistic-concurrency guard. But "guarded by the etag" is left unexplained — there is no etag parameter in the schema and no indication of how to supply or refresh one, so the agent cannot act on this disclosure.

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 sentences front-load the semantics before the endpoint, with no padding. The raw HTTP route is marginally useful for debugging but is the one element that does not directly help an agent choose or invoke the tool.

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 zero parameter documentation, the description should say where contact_url comes from, what happens on an etag mismatch, and what is returned. The dangling etag reference is the most serious hole: an agent may hunt for a nonexistent etag parameter or call the tool without any concurrency token.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. It never explains contact_url (the only required parameter, presumably a full DAV URL) or what any of note/title/emails/phones/full_name/organization expect; only the generic "omitted fields keep their value" hint applies to the six optional fields.

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 ("Change one contact") and adds the raw DAV endpoint, so the agent knows exactly which object is being modified and can distinguish it from nextcloud_create_contact and nextcloud_delete_contact. It stops short of naming those siblings 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?

"Omitted fields keep their value" implies this is a partial/patch-style update rather than a full replace, which is genuinely useful usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, no statement of prerequisites (permissions, address book ownership), and no guidance on what to do when the etag guard fails.

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

Deploy Server