Create or replace a redirect mapping one path to another, checked before page lookup. Set a 301 permanent or 302 temporary redirect to send visitors to the right URL.
Create or replace a redirect from one path to another. Checked before page lookup. http_code 301 (default) or 302.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| http_code | No | ||
| to_permalink | Yes | Relative path or absolute URL | |
| from_permalink | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two non-obvious traits: the operation is an upsert ('create or replace') and redirects are evaluated before page lookup. It does not mention permissions, validation of the source path, or how conflicts with existing pages/redirects are resolved.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by two facts that each change agent behavior (evaluation precedence, default status code). No filler or restatement of the tool name.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, upsert behavior, precedence, and the status-code default. It stops short of describing permissions, conflict handling, or the shape of a successful result, which leaves meaningful gaps for a write operation.
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 33% — only to_permalink is documented. The description compensates partially by framing the parameters as 'from one path to another' and by documenting the http_code default (301) and allowed values (302), which the enum alone does not convey. from_permalink format and constraints remain unexplained in both places.
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 pair and resource ('Create or replace a redirect from one path to another'), which is more precise than the name alone because it signals upsert semantics. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives (delete_redirect, list_redirects), though the create action is unambiguous. Clear enough that an agent can distinguish it from the other redirect tools.
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?
'Checked before page lookup' gives implied context about when a redirect takes effect relative to page resolution, which is genuinely useful routing context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance (e.g., relationship to create_page, or what happens if a redirect already exists). Usage is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.