WordPress MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond those annotations by stating that the tool returns each ability's name, a one-line description, and key parameters, which is essential for subsequent execution.

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 description is two tightly written sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and the critical usage instruction, then covers filters and return content efficiently.

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?

This is a simple, read-only discovery tool with two optional parameters and an output schema. The description covers what it lists, how it should be used relative to execute_ability, how to filter, and what each result contains. Nothing essential for correct invocation is 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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both optional parameters. The description reinforces that they are filters and that they are optional, but it does not add meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('what this WordPress site can do'), and explicitly positions the tool as the source for obtaining the exact ability_name needed before execute_ability. This differentiates it from its sibling execute_ability, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'ALWAYS call this first to get the exact ability_name before execute_ability.' It also notes optional filtering by query or category. However, it does not address when to use get_ability_info instead, so the guidance is strong but not fully exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already indicate destructive, non-read-only, non-idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the success/error return shape and the need to source ability_name from discover_abilities. It does not elaborate on side effects, but annotations cover the main safety signal.

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 description is two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by precise parameter instructions and a compact return-format note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description is largely complete for a dynamic execution tool: it names the discovery prerequisite, defines parameter shaping, and gives the return contract. It does not explicitly warn about arbitrary or destructive abilities, but the annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, and the open-world nature is reinforced by referencing discover_abilities.

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 coverage is only 50% because ability_name lacks a description. The tool description compensates fully by explaining that ability_name must come from discover_abilities and that parameters must follow that ability's own input schema, including the {} convention for no-argument abilities.

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 clearly states 'Run one ability on the site', identifying both the action and the resource being acted on. It also references discover_abilities, which helps distinguish this execution tool from the discovery and info siblings.

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?

The description gives concrete usage guidance: pass the exact ability_name from discover_abilities and shape parameters according to that ability's input schema, using {} when none are needed. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use this tool, but the execution vs. discovery/info distinction is strongly implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive traits; the description adds context beyond them by specifying that the tool returns a full input schema and details for a single ability. It does not contradict annotations and gives a clearer picture of what the call reveals.

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?

Two sentences contain the purpose, the trigger condition, the source of the argument, and the exact value to pass. There is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only introspection tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers when to use it, what to pass, and what it returns, alongside sibling context and annotations that carry the safety profile.

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%, so the description must carry the semantic weight. It does so by explaining that ability_name must be the exact value obtained from discover_abilities, which is more meaningful than the raw schema's bare string type.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get the full input schema and details for a single ability') and immediately differentiates from the sibling discover_abilities by scoping to a single ability. It also tells the agent this is the more detailed fallback, so intent is unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly names the alternative discover_abilities and gives the condition for choosing this tool ('when discover_abilities isn't enough'). It also instructs the caller to pass the exact ability_name from discover_abilities, which is a concrete prerequisite.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.