create_mediaCreate Drupal media entities from remote URLs to import images, videos, or documents by supplying media type, source URL, and name.
Create media entity from a remote URL (image, video, document, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alt | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| media_type | Yes | ||
| source_url | Yes |
| 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 burden. It states creation from a URL but omits whether the file is fetched/downloaded, required permissions, whether media_type must match a configured media type bundle, or what happens on URL failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient but borders on under-specification for a mutation tool, which is a content problem rather than a structure one.
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, but with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and no alternatives guidance, the definition is too thin for a 5-parameter creation tool that overlaps heavily with sibling tools.
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% across 5 parameters, and the description compensates for none of them. The allowed media_type values, and the roles of alt, title, and name are entirely undocumented anywhere.
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?
States a specific verb (Create) and resource (media entity) plus the source mechanism (remote URL), so the basic purpose is clear. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling media_create_from_url, nor from upload_media or media_create_from_base64.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. With media_create_from_url and upload_media as siblings, an agent is left to guess which creation tool applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.