Create a WordPress redirect by defining source and target URLs to send visitors to updated pages and avoid broken links.
Create a redirect.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| redirect | Yes | Redirect fields (source, target, type, ...) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a write operation via 'Create' and says nothing about authentication requirements, required fields, whether existing redirects are overwritten, or what happens on success/failure.
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?
The description is a single four-word sentence with zero waste but is severely under-specified for a tool with a nested object parameter and no annotations. It is too terse to be considered appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 the lack of annotations, no output schema, and a nested redirect object, the description is not complete enough to guide correct invocation. It omits behavioral traits, usage context, and any explanation of the redirect fields, though the input schema does document the parameters.
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%, so the two parameters (site and redirect) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a clear verb and resource ('Create a redirect'), distinguishing it from sibling list/get/update/delete tools. However, it does not differentiate from other creation tools such as seo_create_redirect_from_log or seo_import_redirects, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The description gives no context about when creating a redirect is appropriate versus using seo_create_redirect_from_log or importing redirects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.