nc-mcp-server

get_share

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get full details of a Nextcloud share by ID: type, path, permissions, expiration, note, and more. Use to inspect or validate any specific share.

Instructions

Get details of a specific share by its ID.

Args: share_id: The numeric share ID.

Returns: JSON object with share details: id, share_type, path, permissions, share_with, url (for link shares), expiration, note, label, etc.

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": {
      "share_id": "<share_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_share"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`share_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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the response shape, including the conditional note that 'url' applies to link shares specifically. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation flags.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded, followed by compact Args and Returns sections. Every line earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with safety annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It identifies the required input and summarizes the return fields, though it does not address invalid-ID behavior or permissions, which are minor gaps for this low-complexity operation.

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?

The schema only defines share_id as an integer with no description. The description calls it 'the numeric share ID,' which is minimally helpful but largely redundant with the schema type. It adds no information about where the ID comes from or how it relates to other share operations.

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 states a specific action ('Get details'), a precise resource ('specific share'), and the selection criterion ('by its ID'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like list_shares, create_share, update_share, and delete_share.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you have a share_id and want a single share's details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5, but the 'specific share by its ID' phrasing makes the precondition and scope clear.

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

Deploy Server