wp_site_infoIdentify the connected WordPress site: name, URL, REST namespaces, authenticated user capabilities, and bridge/plugin versions. Start here when inheriting a project.
Identify the connected site: name, description, URL, REST namespaces, the authenticated user and their capabilities, plus bridge/Elementor/plugin versions. Start here when you inherit a project.
| 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 the safety profile is covered by structured data rather than the prose. The description adds useful scope context by disclosing that an authenticated user's capabilities are exposed, but says nothing about permissions required, caching, or whether the call is cheap to repeat.
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 filler. The data returned is front-loaded in a dense noun list and the usage cue is placed last, which is the right emphasis for an entry-point tool.
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 output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so by enumerating the site identity, version, and capability fields an agent needs to orient itself. For a zero-parameter read-only tool, nothing material is missing.
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 is 4 by rule; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the empty input schema. The description does not waste words re-explaining absent 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 (identify) and resource (the connected site), then enumerates the concrete data surface: name, description, URL, REST namespaces, authenticated user and capabilities, and bridge/Elementor/plugin versions. That is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like wp_content_list or wp_plugins_list, which address subsets.
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?
"Start here when you inherit a project" gives a concrete trigger for calling this tool first, which is genuine usage guidance. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full when/when-not routing rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.