site_php_versionRetrieve the PHP version currently assigned to a specific site by providing its primary domain, so you can verify compatibility or troubleshoot hosting issues.
Which PHP version a specific site currently runs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteName | Yes | Primary domain of the site. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1-alpha.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's 'currently runs' adds a small hint that this is live runtime state rather than configured state, but it discloses nothing beyond that – no auth requirements, caching, or return format.
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 short sentence with no filler and the key scope term ('specific site') front-loaded. It loses a point only for being a verbless fragment rather than a complete, self-contained statement.
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 trivial one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description tells the agent what question it answers. It is nearly complete, with only minor ambiguity about the exact shape of the returned version value.
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 coverage is 100% and siteName is documented as the primary domain, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 specific attribute (PHP version) and scope (a specific site), which distinguishes it from a setter like site_set_php_version. However, it is a sentence fragment without a verb, and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling site_php_versions (plural), which likely lists available versions rather than the currently active one.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus site_php_versions or site_set_php_version. The agent must infer from naming alone whether this returns the active version or the available set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.