Create a new OmniFocus folder. Omit parentFolderId for a top-level folder, or include it to nest within an existing folder.
Create a new OmniFocus folder. Omit parentFolderId to create at the top level; provide parentFolderId to nest it inside an existing folder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| parentFolderId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool creates a new resource and how parent nesting affects placement, but it does not mention potential duplicate-name behavior, required existence of the parent folder, or response/return details.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then explains the only conditional parameter. Every clause adds value, with no filler or repetition of schema details.
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 simple two-parameter create operation with no nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the essential calling decisions. The main gap is lack of detail about error conditions or uniqueness, but this is minor for a basic folder creation 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 compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for parentFolderId by explaining omission vs. provision, but name is only represented by the schema's required/minLength constraints and receives no descriptive treatment in the text.
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?
Starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new OmniFocus folder.' It also clarifies the two distinct creation modes (top-level vs. nested), which distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like edit_folder, delete_folder, and list_folders.
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?
Provides clear guidance on when to omit parentFolderId (top-level) and when to provide it (nesting inside an existing folder). It does not explicitly state exclusions or compare against alternatives, but creation is a distinct operation among the siblings, so the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.