Install a WordPress.org plugin on a specified site using its slug, with an option to activate it immediately after installation.
Install a plugin from WordPress.org by slug
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| slug | Yes | Plugin slug from WordPress.org | |
| activate | No | Activate after install |
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: -[
- "slug"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "slug"
+]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. It does not say whether install requires elevated permissions, what happens if the plugin already exists, whether files are fetched from the network, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.
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 no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the missing behavioral guidance rather than being paired with it.
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 network-fetch mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: no permissions, idempotency, failure modes, or activation consequences are covered. The schema handles parameters, but the behavioral context is largely absent.
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 'site', 'slug', and 'activate' fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema (e.g., no slug format or activation side-effect detail).
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 (Install), resource (plugin), and source constraint (from WordPress.org by slug), which implicitly distinguishes it from mcp_install_plugin_zip. No sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The 'from WordPress.org by slug' phrase hints at the source, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g., mcp_install_plugin_zip for a local upload, mcp_search_plugins to find a slug). The agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.