contact_form_listList all contact forms on a Drupal site, with pagination for large collections. Use it to retrieve form IDs and labels before managing submissions or building integrations.
List all contact forms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_limit | No | ||
| page_offset | No |
| 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not mention pagination behavior, result ordering, permissions, or that results are paginated by default (page_limit defaults to 50). An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, but the operational behavior is absent.
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 four-word sentence that is front-loaded and wastes nothing. Its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing, but it is structurally clean.
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 paginated list tool with two undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description leaves key facts unstated: that results are paginated, the default page size, and how to retrieve subsequent pages. The output schema covers the return shape, but the calling behavior remains incomplete.
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% and the description adds nothing about page_limit or page_offset — not even that they control pagination. The phrase 'all contact forms' arguably conflicts with a default page limit of 50. With two undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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?
Specific verb (List) plus resource (contact forms), which is unambiguous against siblings like contact_form_get/create/update/delete. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools such as contact_message_list, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. contact_form_get for a single form), and no prerequisites or permission notes. 'List all' implies a browsing use case but nothing is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.