wordpress_parse_blocksExtract structured WordPress block data from HTML content, enabling automated content processing and manipulation.
Parse block content from HTML
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'parse' implies a non-destructive transformation, but the description does not confirm read-only behavior, specify return values, or mention potential errors or side effects. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified, lacking important details such as output structure or usage context, so it is more trivial than genuinely informative. The brevity does not compensate for missing 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?
The tool has one parameter and no output schema, and the description makes no attempt to explain return values, integration points, or any preconditions. For a simple parsing tool, this minimal description is incomplete, leaving the agent uncertain about input expectations and output behavior.
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?
The schema has one required parameter 'content' with no description (0% coverage). The description's phrase 'from HTML' hints that 'content' should be HTML but does not clarify expected format, size limits, or how the parsed result is returned. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate with more parameter detail but does not.
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 (parse) and identifies the resource (block content from HTML), making the primary function clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like wordpress_get_block_types, which retrieve block types rather than parse HTML into blocks. However, it does not elaborate on the exact output format.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or contrasts with other WordPress block-related tools. The single sentence only states what the tool does without any contextual or conditional advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.