module_controller_createGenerate a Drupal controller class with its route definition for a custom module. Provide machine name and controller name to scaffold the class and routing file.
Create a controller class with routing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| methods | No | ||
| class_name | No | ||
| machine_name | Yes | ||
| controller_name | 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 for what is clearly a write/scaffold operation. It says nothing about whether files are written to disk, whether existing controllers are overwritten, idempotency, or required permissions.
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, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Brevity here reflects missing content rather than disciplined editing.
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 for a 5-parameter mutation/scaffold tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage, the description is far too thin for an agent to 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 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Terms like 'controller' and 'routing' loosely gesture at controller_name/class_name and methods, but machine_name, path, and the structure of the methods array are left completely 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?
States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('controller class with routing'), which is more than a tautology of the title. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like module_service_create, module_plugin_create, or module_form_create, so it falls short of a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools. The agent must infer that this is the scaffolding choice over module_create or module_plugin_create entirely on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.