home-screen-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

file_into_folders

Organize loose iOS Home Screen apps into named folders, joining existing folders or creating new ones while leaving page 1 unchanged by default.

Instructions

File loose apps into folders: {folder name: [app ids]}. Apps join an existing folder with that name, or a new folder (2+ apps). Apps on page 1 are left alone by default.

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": {
      "groups": "<groups>"
    },
    "name": "file_into_folders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`groups`	Yes
`keep_first_page`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: apps merge into an existing same-named folder rather than creating a duplicate, a new folder requires 2+ apps, and page-1 apps are excluded by default. It stops short of stating whether the move is reversible or how app ids are validated.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its parameter shape, then the two behavioral rules. No filler or restated field names.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and both parameters are covered in the prose. The only gaps are edge-case behavior for invalid or conflicting app ids, which is minor for a two-parameter tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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, and it does: it spells out the groups shape as {folder name: [app ids]} and explains that keep_first_page defaults to leaving page 1 untouched. Format details such as whether duplicate app ids across groups are errors remain unstated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('File loose apps into folders') and narrows the target to loose apps, which implicitly separates it from folder-management siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative such as create_folder or move, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 by 'loose apps' — apps already foldered are out of scope — and the default page-1 exclusion is stated. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for grouping a single app versus creating an empty folder.

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