Skip to main content
Glama
rncz

Nextcloud Notes MCP Server

by rncz

edit_category

Rename an existing category in Nextcloud Notes to reorganize your note structure. Specify the current category name and the new name to update.

Instructions

Rename an existing category inside Notes.

Args:
    old_name: Current name of the category.
    new_name: New name for the category.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
old_nameYes
new_nameYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'edit_category' tool, registered via @mcp.tool(). It renames a category directory using the WebDAV client's move method.
    @mcp.tool()
    def edit_category(old_name: str, new_name: str) -> str:
        """
        Rename an existing category inside Notes.
    
        Args:
            old_name: Current name of the category.
            new_name: New name for the category.
        """
        old_path = f"Notes/{old_name}"
        new_path = f"Notes/{new_name}"
        try:
            client.move(old_path, new_path)
        except Exception as e:
            return f"Failed to rename category: {str(e)}"
        return f"Category renamed successfully: {old_path} → {new_path}"
  • Registers the edit_category tool with the FastMCP server using the @mcp.tool() decorator.
    @mcp.tool()
  • Docstring providing input schema (arguments old_name and new_name) and description for the tool.
    """
    Rename an existing category inside Notes.
    
    Args:
        old_name: Current name of the category.
        new_name: New name for the category.
    """
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a rename operation, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions needed, error handling (e.g., if 'old_name' doesn't exist), side effects (e.g., whether notes in the category are affected), or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 description is highly concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by brief parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place by directly contributing to understanding the tool's function and inputs, with no redundant or vague language.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks behavioral context like error conditions or side effects, leaving gaps for the agent to navigate without full guidance.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explicitly defines 'old_name' as 'Current name of the category' and 'new_name' as 'New name for the category', clarifying their roles and intent. With only 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, this compensates well, though it doesn't cover constraints like name length or allowed characters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Rename') and resource ('an existing category inside Notes'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_category' and 'delete_category' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'rename_note', which might cause some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the category must exist), when not to use it (e.g., for non-existent categories), or direct alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'create_category' for new categories). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rncz/nextcloud-notes-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server