OmniFocus MCP Plus

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create folder

create_folder

Create a new folder in OmniFocus, optionally nested under a parent folder, to organize projects and tasks. A stable request key prevents duplicate creation on retries.

Instructions

Create a new folder in OmniFocus, optionally nested under a parent folder

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Name for the new folder
`parent`	No	Parent folder name or ID (creates at top level if omitted)
`idempotencyKey`	No	Stable request key for this create. Reuse identical arguments to replay its result across clients; an uncertain earlier attempt is never repeated.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`meta`	No
`tool`	Yes
`success`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write, and the description adds 'new' plus optional nesting. It does not disclose edge behaviors like duplicate-name handling or missing-parent handling, but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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, readable sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes the key nesting option, though it is slightly redundant with the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a low-complexity creation tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. The main missing piece is explicit sibling routing, but that is a usage-guidance gap rather than a fundamental completeness failure.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters. The description's 'optionally nested under a parent folder' adds little beyond the parent parameter's own schema description, which already says a parent folder name or ID can be supplied and that top-level is used if omitted.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new folder in OmniFocus'), and adds the useful nesting qualifier. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like add_project or create_tag.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus related alternatives such as add_project, create_tag, or update_folder. The optional-parent hint is functional, not selection guidance, so the agent must infer appropriateness from the tool name alone.

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

Deploy Server