nc-mcp-server

create_circle

Create a new Nextcloud circle (team) with optional personal or local visibility and an optional shared team folder. Returns its generated ID.

Instructions

Create a new circle (team).

Args: name: Display name of the new circle. Does not have to be unique. personal: If True, create a personal circle visible only to the owner (useful for private contact groups). local: If True, mark the circle as local (not federated to other instances) even when global scope is enabled. team_folder: If True, also create a team folder: a shared folder every member sees in Files, named after the team (with a number added when that name is taken; see its mountPoint). Needs Nextcloud 35 or later with the Team folders app. Deleting the team later deletes the folder and its files too.

Returns: JSON of the new circle including its generated id. The caller is automatically added as owner (level=9). With team_folder, it also has team_folder (id, mountPoint, quota) or null with team_folder_note saying why none was created.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`local`	No
`personal`	No
`team_folder`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.0Oct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / team_folder

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "title": "Team Folder",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedv0.7.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover only the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the caller is auto-added as owner at level=9, team_folder requires Nextcloud 35 with the Team folders app, the folder name gets a numeric suffix on collision, and deleting the team later deletes the folder and its files. That last point is exactly the kind of destructive side-effect an agent needs.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in one line, then Args and Returns sections keep the detail scannable. It runs long, but nearly every sentence carries prerequisite or side-effect information that isn't repeated elsewhere; only minor trimming is possible.

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 4-parameter creation tool with prerequisites and cascading effects, the description covers ownership, version/app requirements, naming collisions, the returned shape, and the team_folder/team_folder_note result fields. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, and the output schema handles the rest.

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

Parameters5/5

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 and meets it: each of the four parameters gets meaning, defaults, and edge conditions (name need not be unique, personal limits visibility to the owner, local suppresses federation even when global scope is enabled, team_folder has a version/app prerequisite and a cascading delete).

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a new circle (team).' The parenthetical disambiguates the Nextcloud notion of a circle/team, and the sibling set includes other creation tools (create_collective, create_group, create_conversation) that an agent can distinguish by the resource named here.

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 implied by the tool name and the per-parameter semantics (personal for private groups, local for non-federated), but there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance or comparison against sibling creation tools like create_collective or create_group. An agent can infer the context but must supply the routing decision itself.

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

Deploy Server