drupal_checkDetect deprecated Drupal code by running Drupal Check on a specified path, with optional severity filtering to surface errors or warnings before upgrades.
Run Drupal Check for deprecated code detection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| severity | No | error |
| 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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't state whether this is read-only, what output format to expect, how long it takes, or what 'Drupal Check' specifically means in terms of scope. Even with an output schema present, the behavioral profile is thin.
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?
Single short sentence with no waste, though it is arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Front-loaded with the tool name and action.
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 diagnostic tool with an output schema but no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain the two parameters and differentiate from sibling deprecation tools. It leaves too much unsaid.
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% with 2 parameters. The description doesn't explain what 'path' refers to (module directory? site root? file?), nor what values 'severity' accepts or how the default 'error' affects results. Zero compensation for the documentation 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?
States a specific tool name and purpose ('Run Drupal Check for deprecated code detection'), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this from close siblings like 'deprecation_scan' or 'find_deprecated_code', which appear to overlap in purpose.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the multiple sibling deprecation-scanning tools (find_deprecated_code, deprecation_scan, analyze_d7_site). No conditions or prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.