Retrieve an Advanced Custom Fields field group by site ID and group key to inspect its complete field configuration.
Get ACF field group with full field configuration
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Field group key (e.g., group_abc123) | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Input schema / properties / siteAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "key"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "key"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies read-only via the verb 'get'. It says nothing about authentication/site requirements, error behavior for a missing or invalid key, or whether the returned configuration is the raw stored definition versus resolved values.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with the resource front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, but there is so little content that there is no real structure to evaluate beyond brevity.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, an agent needs some hint about the return shape, and 'full field configuration' gives a partial one. With zero annotation coverage, more should be said about what the retrieval guarantees and requires.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% — 'key' includes a format example (group_abc123) and 'site' points to list_sites — so the schema already does the work. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is structured, which is the baseline 3 case.
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?
Clear verb 'Get' plus specific resource 'ACF field group', and 'with full field configuration' signals the payload is the complete group definition rather than a summary. It is distinguishable from acf_list_field_groups and acf_get_post_field by resource name, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. An agent must infer that this is the lookup used once a group key is known (e.g., after acf_list_field_groups) purely from the parameter names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.