moderation_state_listList all Drupal content moderation states with optional filters and pagination to inspect available workflow states for content moderation.
List all moderation states.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filters | 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, and it discloses almost nothing. 'List all' implies an unfiltered read, but the schema contains a filters parameter and pagination defaults (page_limit 50), so 'all' is potentially misleading about the actual behavior and return volume.
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 short and front-loaded, which is structurally fine. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication, so it earns only a middling score.
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 with no annotations, 3 undocumented parameters at 0% coverage, and no usage guidance, the definition is too thin for an agent to call this tool confidently with filters or pagination.
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 all three parameters (filters, page_limit, page_offset) are undocumented anywhere. The description must compensate but instead says nothing about filtering or pagination, and its 'List all' phrasing actively conflicts with the existence of a filters parameter.
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 verb ('List') and a resource ('moderation states'), so the basic operation is identifiable, but for a tool literally named moderation_state_list it is close to a restatement of the name. It offers no differentiation from siblings such as moderation_state_get, moderation_transition_list, or workflow_list, which an agent must distinguish among.
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 moderation_state_get or moderation_transition_list, and no mention of prerequisites or context. The single sentence gives no usage conditions at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.