kinsta_environments_wp-cliRun WP-CLI commands on a Kinsta environment to manage WordPress sites. Provide an environment ID and a command starting with 'wp '.
Run a WP-CLI command on an environment. The command must start with 'wp '.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| env_id | Yes | The environment ID | |
| wp_command | Yes | WP-CLI command to run (must start with 'wp ') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the agent knows this can be open-ended and destructive. The description adds only the command prefix constraint, which is already in the schema. It does not disclose any additional behavior such as output format, error handling, or execution model, so it adds little value beyond the annotations.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the critical constraint. No unnecessary words, perfectly sized for the information provided.
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 tool that can execute arbitrary WP-CLI commands, the description is minimal. It does not mention what the response will look like (no output schema), whether execution is synchronous, or any caution related to its destructive nature. Given the complexity and risk, more context is needed.
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%, with both parameters documented. The description repeats the constraint about 'wp ' but does not add any new meaning beyond the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for parameter semantics.
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 action: run a WP-CLI command on an environment, with the specific constraint that the command must start with 'wp '. It is unambiguous and distinct from all sibling tools, as no other tool executes arbitrary WP-CLI commands.
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 the tool is for running WP-CLI commands but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. There are many specialized tools in the sibling list, but no mention of preferring this one for general-purpose command execution. The usage context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.