Atwork

Move Sheet Page Or Folder

item_tree.move

DestructiveIdempotent

Move a sheet or page to another space or folder, or a folder inside another folder of its space. Ids come from workspace.structure. Returns where it now sits, by name.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pageId`	No
`sheetId`	No	The sheet to move (give exactly one of sheetId, pageId, folderId)
`folderId`	No	A folder moves only within its own space
`toSpaceId`	Yes	The space it goes to
`toFolderId`	No	A folder of `toSpaceId`; omit for the top of the space

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`kind`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`location`	Yes	Where it now sits

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedNov 4, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / location / properties / folderId / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / location / properties / folderId / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / location / properties / folderName / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / location / properties / folderName / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
AddedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful fact that the call returns the new location by name, but says nothing about what a move breaks (links, permissions, views) or whether cross-space folder moves are rejected -- worth flagging given the destructive hint.

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?

Two compact sentences, scope first and return behavior second, with no filler. Slightly under-specified rather than padded, which is the better failure mode.

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?

With an output schema present, the return sentence is a nice-to-have rather than a requirement. For a destructive, five-parameter move operation, the description leaves gaps around permissions, side effects, and error conditions that an agent would want before calling it.

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 coverage is 80% and the schema itself states the mutually-exclusive id rule and the folder space constraint. The description's only added meaning is the provenance hint that ids come from workspace.structure, which is genuinely useful but thin. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

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 opens with a specific verb and enumerates the three supported resources (sheet, page, folder) plus both destination kinds (space, folder), which is well beyond a restatement of the title. It stops short of naming any sibling such as item_tree.duplicate to anchor the distinction, so it lands just under a 5.

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?

It gives one concrete usage aid -- that ids come from workspace.structure -- which tells the agent where to source arguments. It never states when to prefer this over duplication, folder.update, or archive/restore, and there are no exclusions or preconditions named.

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

All Atwork tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?