workflow_listRetrieve all Drupal workflows with optional filters and pagination to inspect content moderation states and transitions for site configuration.
List all workflows.
| 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 burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the implied read-only nature of 'list'. It says nothing about pagination behavior, default result size, or whether 'all' is truly unbounded, which matters for a list endpoint with page_limit/page_offset.
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, so it is structurally fine, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It does not earn its place by conveying decision-relevant information.
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 with zero annotation coverage and three undocumented parameters (including an opaque filters object) the description is too thin for an agent to invoke the tool 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% and the description names no parameters at all. The opaque 'filters' anyOf object and the paging parameters are left entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description.
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 verb+resource (list workflows) is stated, but it essentially restates the tool name and provides no differentiation from siblings like workflow_get or moderation_state_list. An agent cannot tell from the description alone which workflow-related tool to choose.
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 versus alternatives such as workflow_get, nor any prerequisite or scoping context. The reader must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.