List all definitions of a given kind (field groups, post types, taxonomies, options pages) from every source (database, JSON, PHP) with their _source.
List all definitions of one kind from every source (database, JSON, PHP) with their _source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | Definition kind: field groups, post types, taxonomies or options pages | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the burden; 'List' implies a read, and it usefully discloses that results aggregate across database, JSON, and PHP sources with a _source field on each item. It does not state permissions, result size, or pagination, which matters since there is no output schema.
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 tightly front-loaded sentence with no filler; the source scope is stated before the modifier. The trailing 'with their _source' is slightly cryptic but still earns its place by hinting at return content.
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?
Two required parameters are fully schema-documented, so the callable surface is complete. With no output schema and no annotation coverage, the description stops short of explaining what a 'definition' contains or how many come back, leaving a modest gap.
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%, with the 'kind' enum fully enumerated and 'site' pointing to list_sites, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces the 'one kind' and 'every source' framing, adding little beyond the schema.
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 (list) and resource (definitions) with a distinguishing scope clause: 'of one kind from every source (database, JSON, PHP)'. However it never disambiguates 'definitions' from neighbors like fields_get_definition or acf_list_field_groups, so an agent must infer the relationship.
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 at all. With siblings such as fields_get_definition, fields_list_types, and acf_list_field_groups, the description gives no condition for choosing this tool or any exclusion, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.