kinsta_sites_listGet a list of all WordPress sites in your Kinsta company. Optionally include environment details for each site.
List all WordPress sites in your Kinsta company. Optionally include environment details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_environments | No | Include environment details for each site |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scope (all sites) and optional environment inclusion, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or any other behavioral traits. With annotations carrying the safety burden, the description adds modest value.
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, tightly written sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, and the optional parameter is mentioned without redundancy. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.
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 bears the burden of explaining the response. It does not specify what fields are returned per site, whether results are paginated, or how environment details are structured. For a list-all tool, this leaves some ambiguity, though the tool's simplicity and annotations mitigate the gap.
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?
The schema already documents the only parameter (include_environments) with a clear description. The tool description repeats this same information without adding extra meaning (e.g., default behavior, effect on response size). Since schema coverage is 100%, 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 verb 'List', the resource 'all WordPress sites', and the scope 'in your Kinsta company'. It is specific and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like kinsta_sites_get (for a single site) or kinsta_environments_list (for environments). The name and context make the distinction inferable, but not explicit.
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 provides context on when to use it (listing all sites) and the optional parameter behavior, but it does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as kinsta_sites_get or kinsta_environments_list. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.