open-mcp-apps

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Move item

data_move_item

Idempotent

Move an item to a different group or position, such as a kanban column, while verifying it belongs to the specified collection.

Instructions

Move an item to another group and/or position (e.g. kanban column).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`actor`	No
`group`	No
`position`	No
`collection`	No	the item's collection, if known — the write is refused unless the row is in it
`command_id`	Yes	idempotency key — generate a fresh uuid per action
`expected_version`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`ok`	Yes
`eot`	No
`seq`	No
`item`	No
`note`	No
`reason`	No
`deleted`	No
`collection`	No
`violations`	No
`expected_version`	No
`prev_collection_seq`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.10.1Oct 18, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / collection

Added value: +{
+  "description": "the item's collection, if known — the write is refused unless the row is in it",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv0.5.7Aug 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond annotations – no mention of the collection-scoped refusal, version conflicts, or side effects, which the schema handles instead.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words and a helpful parenthetical example. However, given a 7-parameter mutation tool, this level of brevity leaves too much unsaid rather than being optimally sized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 7 parameters, 2 required, 29% schema coverage, and a mutation operation, the description is far too thin. An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but the description should still convey concurrency (expected_version) and actor semantics that it omits.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at 'group' and 'position' via the kanban example. Critical parameters like expected_version, actor, and id receive no clarification in the description, leaving the coverage gap unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb (move) and resource (item) plus the target dimensions (group and/or position) with a clarifying example (kanban column). It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like data_update_item, so it stops short of 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 Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no when-to-use context, prerequisites, or alternatives such as data_update_item or data_add_item. An agent must infer that this is for repositioning/regrouping rather than general field edits.

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