Retrieve the current iPhone Home Screen layout, including dock, pages, folders, widgets, and App Library-only apps for inspection or planning changes.
The current draft: dock, every page and the App Library-only apps, as {id, name} items (folders carry their contents, widgets their size).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 burden; it does clarify that the subject is the current draft (not the installed phone layout, a useful distinction from read_phone) and discloses nesting semantics for folders and widgets. However, it never explicitly states that the operation is non-mutating/read-only or what happens if no draft exists, which matters given the sibling set is dominated by mutating tools.
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?
One dense sentence with no filler, and the core subject (the current draft) is front-loaded. The parenthetical about folders and widgets earns its space by explaining the item shape.
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 needn't explain return values, yet it spends its only sentence there. For a zero-parameter read tool that is nearly sufficient, but with no annotations the description should also have flagged read-only safety and the draft-vs-device scope explicitly.
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 schema imposes nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline applies; nothing is misdescribed.
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 concretely specifies the resource returned: the current draft with dock, all pages and App Library-only apps, including how folders and widgets are represented. The retrieval verb is only implied by the name rather than stated in the text. It also never distinguishes itself from look-alike siblings such as diff or render_preview, which also surface layout state.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read path for inspecting a layout before diff/render_preview/apply, and that it reads the draft rather than the live device (unlike read_phone).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.