agency-hosting_listPHPOptionsForAWebsiteV1Retrieve configurable PHP options for an Agency Plan website, showing defaults, current values, and accepted values.
Lists the php.ini directives that can be configured for an Agency Plan website, each with its default, the value currently in effect, and the values it accepts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| website_uid | Yes | Agency Plan website UID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.42.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds context about the returned data (default, current value, accepted values) and the scope (Agency Plan website), going beyond annotations without contradicting them.
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, well-structured sentence that conveys the action, scope, and output details without redundancy. It is directly front-loaded and free of filler.
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 simple read-only list operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what is listed and the per-item data. It covers the essential aspects an agent needs to call and interpret the result.
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% for the single parameter website_uid, which is already described as 'Agency Plan website UID'. The description does not add any additional parameter-level details, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the tool lists php.ini directives for an Agency Plan website, specifying the exact resource and scope. It differentiates from siblings like agency-hosting_listAvailablePHPVersionsForAWebsiteV1 (versions) and agency-hosting_replaceWebsitePHPOptionsV1 (modification) by focusing on directive configuration details.
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 description implies this tool is for reading PHP configuration, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to use replaceWebsitePHPOptionsV1 for changes). No exclusions or alternative routing are given, so guidance is only implied by the tool's name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.