wordpress_read_plugin_fileRead any file from a WordPress plugin by specifying the plugin name and file path. Useful for inspecting plugin code or retrieving configuration files.
Read a specific file from a plugin
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plugin | Yes | ||
| filePath | 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 must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'read,' which implies a safe, non-destructive operation, but it does not mention return format, error handling, or any side effects. The transparency is minimal.
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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly conveying the core operation without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., file contents), how errors are handled, or any prerequisites. For a two-parameter tool, more context is needed to enable correct invocation.
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 two parameters (plugin and filePath) with zero description coverage. The description adds only that the file is 'from a plugin,' which hints that plugin identifies the plugin and filePath is the file within it, but it does not clarify path format, whether filePath is relative to plugin root, or any constraints. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 'Read a specific file from a plugin' clearly states the action (read) and the resource (a file within a plugin). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wordpress_read_theme_file and generic wordpress_read_file by explicitly scoping to plugins.
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 instead of alternatives such as wordpress_list_plugin_files or wordpress_read_file. It only states what it does, not the context or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.