nc-mcp-server

leave_circle

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove the current user from a Nextcloud circle, transferring ownership if needed or destroying the circle when they are the last member. Requires confirmation to delete the team folder.

Instructions

Leave a circle the current user is a member of.

IMPORTANT: When the owner leaves, the server makes another member the owner (the highest level, then the longest-standing). Any entry of list_circle_members counts, even a group, a nested circle or a pending invitation or join request. When the owner is the last one, leaving destroys the entire circle, with no confirmation prompt. Because of this implicit destroy, this tool requires DESTRUCTIVE permission (matching leave_conversation in Talk).

Args: circle_id: String circle id. delete_team_folder: Destroying the circle also deletes its team folder (Nextcloud 35+ with the Team folders app) and every file in it. When that would happen, the tool refuses unless this is true.

Returns: JSON of the circle the user just left (circle fields: id, name, config, population, initiator, …). Empty when the caller loses visibility on the circle after leaving (e.g. when the circle is destroyed).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`circle_id`	Yes
`delete_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 / delete_team_folder

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

First observedv0.7.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it explains ownership succession rules (highest level, then longest-standing), that any membership entry including groups, nested circles, and pending invitations counts, that destruction happens with no confirmation prompt, and that DESTRUCTIVE permission is required. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before an irreversible call.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, and the Args/Returns structure makes the detail scannable, so length is largely earned. The ownership-succession explanation is slightly elaborate for a tool call, keeping it just under a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still usefully clarifies that the return may be empty when the caller loses visibility after leaving. Combined with the destructive-behavior and parameter caveats, nothing an agent needs to invoke this safely is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the full burden, and it does: circle_id is defined as the String circle id, and delete_team_folder is explained in terms of exact trigger conditions (Nextcloud 35+ with Team folders app) and consequences (deletes the folder and every file in it), plus the refusal semantics when it is false.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Leave a circle the current user is a member of.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_circle, remove_circle_member, and join_circle. 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 Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear conditions: when the last owner leaves the circle is destroyed, and destructive permission is required (explicitly paralleled with leave_conversation). It also states the tool refuses unless delete_team_folder is true when a team folder would be destroyed. It lacks explicit 'use X instead' routing to delete_circle or remove_circle_member, so it falls 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