home-screen-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

rename_folder

Renames a specified Home Screen folder on an iPhone or iPad by folder ID and new name, helping organize app layouts from a Mac.

Instructions

Rename a folder.

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": {
      "folder_id": "<folder_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`folder_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, yet it provides none: no mention of permissions required, whether the rename is reversible, what happens on name collisions, or whether contents are preserved. The single sentence merely restates the mutation implied by the name.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but it is so terse that it under-specifies rather than being genuinely concise. Brevity here comes at the cost of essential guidance.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, so the description should compensate with permission, collision, and ID-format details. It does none of that, though the existence of an output schema relieves it of return-value explanation.

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

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not clarify either parameter. "folder_id" is presumably an identifier but the expected format (ID vs path vs name) is unstated, and the relationship between "name" and the rename is left implicit.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Rename") with a specific resource ("folder"), so the basic action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this from related siblings like create_folder, dissolve_folder, or move, leaving the agent to infer boundaries.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions such as existing folder requirement or name-uniqueness rules. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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