nc-mcp-server

delete_option

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove an answer option from a specific question in a Nextcloud form by providing the form, question, and option IDs. Confirms deletion of the option.

Instructions

Delete an answer option from a question.

Args: form_id: Numeric form id. question_id: Numeric question id. option_id: Numeric option id.

Returns: Confirmation with the deleted id.

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": {
      "form_id": "<form_id>",
      "question_id": "<question_id>",
      "option_id": "<option_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_option"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`form_id`	Yes
`option_id`	Yes
`question_id`	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

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the description need not restate that. It adds the return contract ('Confirmation with the deleted id') and scopes deletion to an option within a question, but it does not mention irreversibility or cascading effects on submissions.

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?

One-sentence purpose plus compact Args and Returns blocks. No fluff or repetition; every line earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers purpose, all three required parameters, and the return value. With annotations handling destructive/idempotent flags, the main gap is a note on side effects on existing submissions or prerequisites, but it is otherwise adequate for a simple scoped delete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the Args section is the only prose for parameters. It labels each as numeric and clarifies the form→question→option hierarchy, but much of this mirrors the schema property titles and the integer type.

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 ('answer option from a question'), and the 'from a question' scoping distinguishes it from delete_question and delete_form siblings. An agent can tell exactly what this tool acts on 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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The name and first sentence imply the deletion use case, and no sibling directly competes, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusion guidance.

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

Deploy Server