kinsta_environments_wpa_user-existsCheck if a WordPress admin user exists by email within a Kinsta environment, providing a quick yes/no answer to verify user presence.
Check whether a WordPress admin user exists by email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | The WordPress admin email | ||
| env_id | Yes | The environment ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral details beyond 'check whether exists', which is consistent with the annotations. It does not disclose output format, error behavior, or other execution traits, but the annotations reduce the burden.
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, concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word earns its place. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 existence check with two parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It implies a boolean or existence result, and the annotations cover safety. The only minor gap is an explicit statement of the return format (e.g., true/false), but given the tool's simplicity and the 'check whether' phrasing, the missing detail is easily inferred. Overall it is adequate for an agent to call correctly.
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%: both email and env_id have descriptive text in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, and its mention of 'by email' aligns with the email parameter but doesn't provide extra semantics for env_id. Baseline 3 applies since the schema covers parameters.
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 verb ('Check') and resource ('WordPress admin user') with the qualification 'by email', making the tool's function unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like kinsta_environments_wpa_create-user or kinsta_environments_wpa_login-url, which have different purposes.
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 usage context (checking existence before creating or managing a user), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusion criteria. There is no guidance on when not to use it, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.