List WordPress sites

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail that credentials are never returned, which is security-relevant and beyond the annotations. It also clarifies this list returns all sites ('every'), aligning with openWorldHint but adding specifics about the returned fields.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output description, followed by a targeted usage hint and a security caveat. No wasted words, every sentence provides distinct value.

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 no parameters, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what is returned (id, URL, auth method, writable), the intended usage (start here when site_id unknown), and a critical security note (credentials never returned). Nothing 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?

With zero parameters and a fully covered (empty) schema, the description has no parameter semantics to add. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output and usage rather than inventing unnecessary parameter details.

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 clearly states the action (List) and the resource (every WordPress site configured on this MCP server), and specifies the output fields (id, URL, auth method, writable). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_site by emphasizing 'every' and the 'when you don't know site_id' hint, making it unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says 'Start here when you do not know which site_id to use.' This directly tells the agent when to pick this tool, implying that when a site_id is known, get_site is the alternative. Clear usage context with no ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.