Skip to main content
Glama
rncz

Nextcloud Notes MCP Server

by rncz

rename_note

Rename Markdown notes in Nextcloud Notes to update file names or organize them into categories, overwriting existing files when necessary.

Instructions

Rename a Markdown (.md) note inside Notes or a category. Overwrites the target if it already exists.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYes
new_filenameYes
categoryNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The complete implementation of the 'rename_note' MCP tool, including registration via @mcp.tool() decorator, function signature (serving as schema), and the handler logic that renames a note using the WebDAV client's move method.
    @mcp.tool()
    def rename_note(filename: str, new_filename: str, category: str | None = None) -> str:
        """
        Rename a Markdown (.md) note inside Notes or a category.
        Overwrites the target if it already exists.
        """
        source_path = f"Notes/{category}/{filename}" if category else f"Notes/{filename}"
        target_path = f"Notes/{category}/{new_filename}" if category else f"Notes/{new_filename}"
    
        try:
            client.move(source_path, target_path, overwrite=True)
        except Exception as e:
            return f"Failed to rename note: {str(e)}"
    
        return f"Note renamed successfully: {source_path} → {target_path}"
  • Registration of the 'rename_note' tool using the FastMCP @mcp.tool() decorator.
    @mcp.tool()
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully adds that the tool 'Overwrites the target if it already exists,' which is a critical behavioral trait not inferable from the schema. However, it lacks other important details like permission requirements, error handling (e.g., if the note doesn't exist), or whether the rename is atomic/reversible. This partial disclosure earns a baseline 3.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds crucial behavioral context. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates essential information without fluff.

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 (3 parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the core action and a key behavioral trait but misses parameter semantics and usage guidelines. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate, making it only minimally adequate.

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

Parameters2/5

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 but fails to do so. It doesn't explain any parameters—what 'filename' and 'new_filename' represent (e.g., paths, basenames), what 'category' means, or format constraints (e.g., .md extension). The agent must rely solely on schema titles, which are minimal. This is inadequate given the coverage gap.

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 action ('Rename') and resource ('a Markdown (.md) note inside Notes or a category'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'edit_note' (which likely modifies content) and 'create_note' (which creates new notes). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'edit_category' might also involve renaming), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 note must exist), compare to similar tools like 'edit_note' for content changes, or specify scenarios where renaming is appropriate versus creating/deleting. The agent must infer usage from context 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