List 404 and redirect monitor log entries for a WordPress site to review redirect activity and find broken links.
List the 404/redirect monitor log entries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| params | No | Query params (page, per_page, search, ...) |
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. It says 'List', which implies a read, but discloses nothing about pagination behavior, whether the log is pruned/truncated, or what a log entry contains. For a monitoring/history tool this is thin.
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 efficient sentence with no waste and the resource front-loaded. It is at the right size for the tool, though it is a fragment rather than a structured definition.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least sketch what the log entries are or how they are paged, and should point to the related clear/create-from-log tools. It is adequate to identify the tool but leaves the read-only safety profile and return shape implicit.
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% (site is documented as a site id, params as query params like page/per_page/search), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter meaning 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 clear verb+resource: listing 404/redirect monitor log entries. It is distinguishable in spirit from seo_list_redirects (redirect rules) and seo_create_redirect_from_log, though it never names those siblings to make the boundary explicit.
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 guidance on when to use this versus seo_list_redirects, seo_clear_monitor_log, or seo_create_redirect_from_log. The agent must infer the intended workflow entirely from the names of siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.