theme_debug_enableEnable theme debugging for a Drupal site to expose Twig template suggestions, debug comments, and rendering insights. Provide the machine name to activate Twig debug output.
Enable theme debugging (Twig debug, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| machine_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 burden. 'Enable' implies a mutation, but the description does not state what exactly gets changed, whether it is reversible, what permissions are required, or how it persists. It adds no behavioral context beyond the bare operation.
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 wasted clauses except a vague 'etc.' It is appropriately short for the operation, though under-specification is penalized in contextual completeness rather than here.
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?
The tool mutates theme debugging state. With no annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should at least clarify what theme debugging entails and how machine_name is used. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but behavioral and parameter context are missing.
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% for both parameters (machine_name required, path optional with default null). The description does not mention either parameter, so it provides no semantic meaning for machine_name or path and fails to compensate for the schema 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 verb ('Enable') and resource ('theme debugging'), which distinguishes it from other enable tools like language_enable or performance_bigpipe_enable. However, it does not name any sibling explicitly, 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?
No guidance on when to use this versus other theme or debug tools, no prerequisites (e.g., theme must exist), and no alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.