create_migration_planDefine or replace a persisted Drupal migration plan with source, target, entities, and field mappings to track and reuse site migration steps.
Create or replace a persisted migration plan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| target | No | ||
| entities | No | ||
| migration_id | Yes | ||
| field_mappings | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Create or replace' hints at upsert semantics, but nothing is said about auth requirements, what happens to an existing plan, validation, or side effects of this mutation.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but its brevity crosses into under-specification for a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations.
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 needn't be explained, but for a complex mutation with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations the description is far too thin to let an agent call it correctly.
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 6 parameters (migration_id, notes, source, target, entities, field_mappings), and the description mentions none of them. It does nothing to compensate for the entirely undocumented schema.
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/replace) and resource (persisted migration plan), and 'persisted' usefully signals storage. However, it does not distinguish this from the closely related sibling ai_generate_migration_plan, which an agent could easily confuse with it.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like ai_generate_migration_plan, generate_migration_yaml, and validate_migration in the same family, the agent gets no help deciding which to invoke.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.