webform_token_listLists available Drupal webform tokens, optionally filtered by webform ID, so you can reference dynamic values in forms and submissions.
List available webform tokens.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| webform_id | 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 must carry the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the purpose. It does not clarify whether webform_id is required to scope tokens, whether the list covers all webforms by default, or whether it is a pure read 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 zero filler, which is appropriate for a list utility. Its only shortcoming is being under-specified rather than verbose.
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 explaining return values is unnecessary. However, with no annotations and an undocumented optional parameter, the description omits the one piece of context an agent needs: the effect and default behavior of webform_id.
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 the single parameter webform_id is optional/nullable. The description says nothing about what the parameter controls, so it does not compensate for the undocumented schema and an agent cannot tell what happens when it is omitted.
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 (List) and resource (webform tokens), which is enough for an agent to know it enumerates available token names. It does not differentiate from the very similar sibling token-list tools (metatag_token_list, pathauto_token_list), so an agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.
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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. An agent is left to infer that this is for discovering tokens before setting up webform value templates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.