wordpress_list_plugin_filesList all files in a WordPress plugin directory, with an option to recursively include subdirectories.
List all files in a plugin directory
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plugin | Yes | ||
| recursive | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, which is reasonably transparent. However, it does not disclose details about recursion behavior, file path format, or whether hidden files are included, leaving some ambiguity.
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 six-word sentence, highly concise and front-loaded. No wasted words, and it directly states the action and target.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not clarify the recursive parameter's effect, expected input format, or return values, leaving the agent uncertain about invocation and output.
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 compensate. It provides minimal context for the 'plugin' parameter ('plugin directory') but says nothing about the 'recursive' parameter or how to specify the plugin (slug, folder name, path). The description adds little beyond what the parameter names imply.
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 resource ('files in a plugin directory'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like wordpress_list_theme_files and wordpress_list_files. It unambiguously communicates the tool's scope.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention wordpress_list_files, wordpress_list_theme_files, or any conditions/exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.