Retrieve Home Screen layout backups captured before each apply or restore, ordered oldest first, so you can review or recover previous iPhone arrangements.
Layouts saved before each apply/restore, oldest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: entries are pre-mutation snapshots and are ordered oldest first. It says nothing about whether the list is bounded, capped, or retained indefinitely, which matters for an unbounded history list.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded clause that defines the resource, followed by the ordering guarantee — no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but nothing in it is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers what the items represent and their order, which is the key context. The remaining gap is retention/limit behavior, minor given the output schema documents the shape.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail and instead spends its words on semantics of the returned items.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the resource precisely: layouts snapshotted before each apply/restore, returned oldest first. That is more informative than the bare name and distinguishes it from show_layout or undo, but it never names a sibling or scopes what a 'backup' is relative to those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explains what the entries are, not when to call the tool. An agent choosing between list_backups, undo, restore and show_layout gets no routing hint — nothing says to call this before a restore or to skip it when undo suffices.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.