contact_message_listList contact form submissions from a Drupal site, with optional form ID filtering and pagination. Retrieve inquiries, requests, or messages submitted through contact forms.
List contact form submissions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form_id | No | ||
| 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 are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states the operation is a list, leaving read-only safety, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, and filtering unspecified. It does not contradict anything, but it is minimal.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation, though it is perhaps too terse given the lack of other guidance.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations, 0% parameter description coverage, and only a bare statement of purpose, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand filtering, pagination, or when to choose this tool over siblings.
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 no information about any of the three parameters. form_id, page_limit, and page_offset are not explained, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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?
The description states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('contact form submissions'), making the tool's basic function obvious. However, it does not distinguish from adjacent tools such as contact_form_list or contact_message_get.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like contact_message_get, contact_form_list, or contact_spam_check. The description provides no context, exclusions, or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.