wp_health_checkDiagnose WordPress connectivity in layers: REST reachability, credential acceptance, bridge claim, Elementor presence, permalinks, and debug log size before blaming code.
Diagnose connectivity in layers: REST reachable, credentials accepted, bridge claimed, Elementor present, permalinks, and debug log size. Use before blaming the code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the layered probe order and that it reads the debug log size, but it says nothing about failure modes, error semantics, or what the diagnostic report looks like.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the enumerated diagnostic layers followed by the usage cue. Every listed item carries distinct information about what is probed.
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 zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs to decide to call it and understand what surfaces it inspects. The only mild gap is the exact shape of the returned report, which is not required to invoke it correctly.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. Nothing in the schema requires further explanation, and the description correctly spends no words on inputs.
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 ('Diagnose') and enumerates exactly what is checked: REST reachability, credentials, bridge claim, Elementor presence, permalinks, debug log size. That is far more specific than siblings like wp_bridge_status or wp_el_status, though it never names them to sharpen the distinction.
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?
'Use before blaming the code' gives a loose trigger condition (run this when connectivity problems are suspected), which is better than nothing. But it never routes between this tool and the narrower siblings (wp_bridge_status, wp_el_status, wp_site_info), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.