kinsta_themes_list-wpList WordPress themes for a Kinsta environment using details from the WordPress.org repository. Filter by active or inactive status and check for vulnerabilities or available updates.
List WordPress themes with details from the WordPress.org repository for an environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| column | No | ||
| env_id | Yes | The environment ID | |
| status | No |
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 covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that data comes from the external WordPress.org repository, but it does not disclose pagination, result shape, or whether the optional filters modify the external query.
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, compact sentence with no wasted words and the core verb-resource pair front-loaded. The phrase 'with details' is slightly vague, and the word order is a bit awkward, but overall it is appropriately sized.
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 should clarify what 'details' are returned, whether the repository list is filtered by status or column, and how the environment ID determines the results. It leaves these important operational questions unanswered, making the tool under-specified for reliable invocation.
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?
Only env_id is described in the schema, giving 33% coverage. The description does not explain the optional column or status parameters—their enum values, their filtering semantics, or how they relate to the listed themes. Since schema coverage is low and the description does not compensate, the agent is left guessing about parameter behavior.
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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('WordPress themes'), and adds scope ('for an environment') plus a clear source ('from the WordPress.org repository'). This distinguishes it from the sibling kinsta_themes_list, which appears to target environment-installed themes without the repository-source qualifier.
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 use case by specifying the WordPress.org repository as the data source, and the 'for an environment' phrase gives context. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over kinsta_themes_list, kinsta_plugins_list-wp, or other listing tools, nor does it state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.