Create a folder in iCloud Drive at a given path; the parent must exist, and an existing folder is returned unchanged.
Create a folder (parent must exist). Returns the existing folder if it is already there.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real behavioral traits: the parent-must-exist precondition and idempotent behavior (returns the existing folder rather than erroring). It stops short of covering permissions, error cases (e.g., a file already at that path), or side effects.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the constraint/precondition attached inline. Every clause earns its place.
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 single-parameter mutation tool with an output schema already covering return values, the description is nearly sufficient — it even documents idempotent return behavior, which the output schema alone wouldn't convey. Missing path format and permission/error semantics keep it just short of complete.
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 compensate for the single 'path' parameter. 'Parent must exist' adds meaningful constraint on how path is interpreted, but format details (absolute vs. root-relative, folder naming rules) are never specified.
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 a specific verb and resource ('Create a folder') with no ambiguity, and among siblings like icloud_rename, icloud_move, and icloud_write_file it is clearly the only folder-creation tool. An agent can identify its role without opening the schema.
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 states a precondition ('parent must exist') and an idempotency condition, which is useful usage context. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus siblings, and no alternatives or exclusions are named — usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.