kinsta_environments_wpa_create-userCreate a WordPress admin user in a Kinsta environment by specifying the environment ID, email, first name, and last name.
Create a WordPress admin user in an environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | The new WordPress admin email | ||
| env_id | Yes | The environment ID | |
| last_name | Yes | ||
| first_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The only annotation is openWorldHint, which provides no behavioral insight. The description's word 'Create' implies mutation but does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or what happens on duplicate email or invalid environment ID. No output schema exists, so the response format is unknown. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.
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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any extraneous wording. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it quick to parse. There is no redundancy or 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 tool that creates a resource, the description is critically sparse. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the environment must exist), error conditions (e.g., duplicate email), or what the tool returns upon success. Given that there is no output schema, the description should provide more context, but it does not. An agent has insufficient information to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.
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 only 50%: email and env_id have descriptions, while first_name and last_name do not. The tool description adds no additional meaning for any parameter, failing to compensate for the missing schema details. For instance, it does not clarify whether first_name and last_name are required or how they are used in creating the user.
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 (create) and the resource (WordPress admin user) within a specific scope (an environment). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wpa_login-url and wpa_user-exists, which serve different purposes (retrieving login URL and checking user existence respectively).
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. The description does not mention that it is for creating a new user, while wpa_user-exists should be used for checking if a user already exists, or that wpa_login-url is for retrieving login credentials. An agent is left to infer the usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.