List all ACF field groups and their fields for a specified WordPress site.
List all ACF field groups with their fields
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / siteAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "site"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies read-only safety and 'with their fields' discloses return composition, but there is no mention of authentication, permissions, pagination, or whether inactive groups are included.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It could be slightly richer without sacrificing conciseness, but it is well-structured and appropriately sized.
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 simple one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what is returned and implies safety. However, it omits usage context and any behavioral caveats that would matter without annotations, leaving it adequate but not complete.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'site' parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource: 'List all ACF field groups with their fields.' Clear enough to distinguish from singular getter acf_get_field_group, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling or scope (active vs all).
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 alternatives, no prerequisites. The plural 'list all' implies a bulk overview use case, but nothing explains when to prefer this over acf_get_field_group or fields_list_definitions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.