moderation_state_createCreate a new Drupal moderation state within a workflow by specifying state ID, label, and default status. Use it to add custom states for content moderation.
Create a new moderation state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | Yes | ||
| weight | No | ||
| state_id | Yes | ||
| is_default | No | ||
| workflow_id | 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 behavioral burden, yet it only implies a mutation. It says nothing about required permissions, whether the state becomes immediately active, how weight/is_default interact, or what happens on conflict with an existing state_id.
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 short sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness given the tool's complexity.
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 described, but for a five-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the definition 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 five parameters, and the description adds no meaning for workflow_id, state_id, label, weight, or is_default. The relationship between workflow_id and state_id is left entirely unexplained.
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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Create a new moderation state') but is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like moderation_state_update or moderation_transition_create.
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 versus moderation_state_update, moderation_state_get, or the transition tools, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.