Insert, move, or delete Home Screen pages: create an empty page, relocate a page to a new position, or remove a page while its apps move to the App Library.
Page operations: op='insert' (new empty page at page), 'move' (page -> to),
'delete' (its apps go to the App Library, like iOS).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| op | Yes | ||
| to | No | ||
| page | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that deleting a page sends its apps to the App Library, similar to iOS, which is important destructive context. It does not describe permissions, reversibility, or whether confirmation is required for insert and move.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then enumerates each operation with its relevant parameter. Every clause adds useful information with no filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. For a three-parameter mutation tool, it covers all operations and highlights the main delete side effect. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit routing between this page move operation and the sibling `move` tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It maps `op` to insert, move, and delete, explains that `page` identifies the page, and shows that `to` is the move destination. It does not explicitly state that `to` is conditionally required only for move.
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 clearly identifies the tool as page operations and enumerates the supported op values: insert, move, and delete. It states the resource and main behaviors, though it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling `move` tool.
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?
The op descriptions imply when each operation applies, such as inserting a new empty page or deleting a page. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `move`, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.