icloud-mcp

icloud_write_file

Write a text file to iCloud Drive from string content. Existing filenames are rejected unless overwrite is enabled, preventing accidental replacement.

Instructions

Create a text file in Drive from a string. Existing names fail unless overwrite is true.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "icloud_write_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`content`	Yes
`overwrite`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does 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 one important trait — existing names fail unless overwrite=true. It does not cover permissions, whether intermediate directories are created, encoding, or whether the write is destructive to prior content of the same name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, the create action front-loaded and the collision constraint immediately after. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the failure-mode rule is a useful addition. Still, for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves path semantics and permission requirements unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that content is a string and that overwrite defaults to non-destructive behavior, but 'path' is never explained (local vs Drive-relative, required) and the other two parameters get only partial treatment.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a text file in Drive') and clarifies the input source ('from a string'). It implicitly separates itself from sibling icloud_upload (binary uploads) and icloud_mkdir (directories), though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the overwrite clause tells the agent what happens on name collision but not when to prefer this tool over icloud_upload or icloud_rename. No prerequisites (parent path existence, auth) are given.

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

Deploy Server