pathauto_pattern_createCreate a new Pathauto pattern to define custom URL aliases for Drupal entity bundles. Specify ID, label, entity type, bundle, and pattern to control automatic path generation.
Create a new pathauto pattern.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| label | Yes | ||
| bundle | Yes | ||
| weight | No | ||
| pattern | Yes | ||
| langcode | No | ||
| entity_type | 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, and it discloses nothing. It does not say what a 'pattern' is (e.g. whether it takes tokens like [node:title]), whether required values like entity_type/bundle must already exist, whether patterns are validated on save, or what happens on conflict.
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, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy. For a 7-parameter creation tool it is not that the text is too long, it is that it says almost nothing.
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 everything else is missing: no behavior, no parameter meaning, no usage context, and no annotations. An agent cannot correctly construct a call from this definition without external knowledge of Drupal pathauto.
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 7 parameters, and the description compensates for none of it. It never explains the distinction between id, label, and pattern, nor the meaning of entity_type, bundle, weight, or langcode, all of which are opaque without documentation.
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 'Create a new pathauto pattern' restates the tool name pathauto_pattern_create almost verbatim, adding no distinguishing detail. It does name a verb and resource, but there is nothing to separate it from pathauto_pattern_update or pathauto_pattern_delete beyond the word '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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools (pathauto_pattern_list, pathauto_pattern_update, pathauto_token_list) an agent would need when configuring URL aliases. Nothing is misleading, but nothing is offered either.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.