wordpress_check_user_capabilityVerify whether a WordPress user holds a specific capability by providing user ID and capability name. Useful for role-based access control.
Check if user has specific capability
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes | ||
| capability | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only check but does not state that explicitly, nor does it mention side effects, error behavior, or what happens for invalid userId/capability values.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every word contributes to conveying the core action, making it appropriately concise.
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 simple two-parameter capability check, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks any mention of return values or edge cases. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description alone does not fully inform the agent about expected results.
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 adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema's names and types. The meaning of 'userId' and 'capability' is fairly obvious, but the tool does not compensate for the low coverage with any specifics.
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 'Check if user has specific capability' uses a clear verb and names the core resource (user capability). It distinguishes itself from capability management tools like wordpress_add_capability and wordpress_remove_capability, though it does not state what result is returned (e.g., boolean).
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wordpress_get_capabilities or wordpress_assign_role. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.