Checks authenticated connectivity to a configured WordPress or Joomla site and returns only its connection status, confirming whether setup and credentials allow a valid read.
Perform a single authenticated read; return only connection status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context by noting the call is authenticated and that the response is limited to connection status with no payload, but it says nothing about failure modes (auth errors, timeouts) or what "status" looks like.
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?
One compact sentence with the key qualifier ("authenticated") and the return scope front-loaded. It earns its place but is arguably over-compressed for a tool whose parameter needs explanation.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description does the right thing by stating the return is only connection status; annotations cover safety. Gaps remain on the site identifier format and on error/status semantics, which matter for a one-parameter connectivity tool with 0% schema coverage.
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 0% for the single required parameter `site`, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it. It says nothing about whether `site` is an ID, hostname, or URL, nor about format or examples, leaving the only parameter effectively undocumented.
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 verb phrase "perform a single authenticated read" plus "return only connection status" conveys a lightweight connectivity/permission check, and the resource is implied only by the tool name and the `site` parameter. It never explicitly states it pings the named site, and the sibling tools are not referenced, so an agent must infer the resource from the name.
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?
"Return only connection status" implicitly contrasts with the list/summarize siblings that return actual data, which hints at using this as a cheap pre-flight check. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given, leaving the choice to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.