nc-mcp-server

delete_flow

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a Nextcloud Flow rule by ID, in user or global scope, to remove unwanted automation. Returns a confirmation message.

Instructions

Delete a Nextcloud Flow rule.

Args: flow_id: The flow's ID, from list_flows. scope: The scope the flow is in: "user" (default) or "global".

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": {
      "flow_id": "<flow_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_flow"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scope`	No		user
`flow_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.9.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return value ('Confirmation message') and the source of flow_id, but does not elaborate on irreversibility, authorization requirements, or side effects beyond what annotations state.

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 short, front-loaded with the action, and organized into Args/Returns. The 'Returns: Confirmation message' line is mildly redundant since an output schema exists, but overall there is little waste.

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?

With annotations covering destructiveness/idempotency and an output schema covering the return value, the remaining burden is parameter meaning, which is addressed for both parameters. Only edge-case guidance (permissions, global-scope restrictions) is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it documents flow_id's origin (list_flows) and enumerates scope values ('user' default, or 'global'), which the schema does not specify. It stops short of explaining consequences of each scope choice.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (Nextcloud Flow rule), which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_flow, update_flow, and list_flows. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 verb and the note that flow_id comes from list_flows, and the scope parameter hints at user vs global contexts. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions (e.g., permissions needed for global flows), and no named alternatives.

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

Deploy Server