nc-mcp-server

create_share

Create a new share for a file or folder in Nextcloud, specifying recipient, permissions, password, and expiration. Supports user, group, link, email, federated, and talk room shares.

Instructions

Create a new share for a file or folder.

Args: path: Path to the file or folder to share (e.g. "/Documents/report.pdf"). share_type: Type of share: 0=user, 1=group, 3=public link, 4=email, 6=federated, 10=talk room. share_with: Recipient — required for all types except link (3). User share (0): username. Group share (1): group name. Email share (4): email address. Federated (6): user@remote.server. Talk room (10): room token. permissions: Bitwise permission flags. 1=read, 2=update, 4=create, 8=delete, 16=share. Common values: 1 (read-only), 15 (full, no reshare), 31 (all). Default: all permissions (31) for user/group, read-only (1) for links. Note: file shares automatically strip create (4) and delete (8) flags. password: Optional password for link (3) or email (4) shares. expire_date: Optional expiration date in "YYYY-MM-DD" format. note: Optional note/message for the share recipient. label: Optional display label for link shares (max 255 chars). public_upload: Enable public upload on shared folders (link shares only).

Returns: JSON object with the created share details including id, url (for links), token, etc.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`path`	Yes
`label`	No
`password`	No
`share_type`	Yes
`share_with`	No
`expire_date`	No
`permissions`	No
`public_upload`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: default permissions vary by share type, file shares automatically strip create/delete flags, and the return value includes id, url, and token. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't cover every edge case like error conditions or rate limits.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections for each parameter and a returns section. It's longer than average, but the density of useful information justifies the length. The front-loaded purpose statement and organized parameter list make it scannable. Minor deduction for the length, but every sentence earns its place.

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 9-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, this description is remarkably complete. It explains all parameters, provides examples, documents defaults, notes behavioral nuances (file shares stripping flags), and describes the return value. The output schema exists, so return details are supplementary. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 of explaining parameters. It does this excellently: each parameter gets a clear explanation, with examples for path, enumerated values for share_type, recipient format per share type, bitwise permission flags with common values, and defaults. This is far beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 clear verb+resource statement: 'Create a new share for a file or folder.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_share, delete_share, and list_shares by focusing on creation. The detailed parameter breakdown further clarifies the exact scope of the operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: when creating a new share for a file or folder. It implicitly distinguishes from update_share (modifying existing shares) and delete_share (removing shares). However, it doesn't explicitly state 'use this instead of X when...' or mention alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server