nc-mcp-server

copy_file

Idempotent

Copy a file or directory in Nextcloud to a new destination path. Leaves the source unchanged; fails if the destination already exists.

Instructions

Copy a file or directory in Nextcloud.

Creates a copy at the destination path. The source remains unchanged. Fails if the destination already exists.

Args: source: Source path. Example: "Documents/report.md" destination: Destination path. Example: "Documents/report-backup.md"

Returns: Confirmation message.

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": {
      "source": "<source>",
      "destination": "<destination>"
    },
    "name": "copy_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	Yes
`destination`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The annotation idempotentHint is true, but the description says 'Fails if the destination already exists.' This contradicts idempotency: calling twice with the same arguments will fail the second time. Therefore the description contradicts the annotations, so the score is 1.

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?

The description is concise, front-loaded, and efficiently structured. It covers behavior, failure condition, parameters with examples, and return type without any fluff.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool, the description provides everything an agent needs: what it does, failure condition, parameter semantics with examples, and the return type. No additional information is needed to call it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantic meaning for both source and destination, including concrete examples. This adds value beyond the raw schema, though it does not specify path formats relative to a root.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (copy) and the resource (file or directory in Nextcloud). It distinguishes from siblings like move_file by explicitly saying 'source remains unchanged', making the semantic distinction obvious.

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?

The description explains the copy operation but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_file or delete_file. The purpose is clear from context, but no explicit guidance or exclusions 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