kinsta_tools_php-versionSwitch the PHP version for a Kinsta environment to a specified version, returning an operation ID for tracking.
Change the PHP version for an environment. Returns an operation_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| php_version | Yes | PHP version to switch to (e.g. 8.1, 8.2, 8.3) | |
| environment_id | Yes | The environment ID | |
| is_opt_out_from_automatic_php_update | No | Opt out of automatic PHP updates |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation only provides openWorldHint, which is minimal. The description discloses that the tool mutates state ('Change') and returns an operation_id, implying an asynchronous operation. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects on the environment, or the meaning of the operation_id. Given the lack of rich annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially fulfills it.
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 that states the action and the return value. It is front-loaded and efficient, with no redundant information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the schema's parameter descriptions, the description is mostly complete. It mentions the return of an operation_id, which is useful. However, it lacks any context about prerequisites, error conditions, or what the operation_id represents in terms of tracking the change. For a straightforward mutation, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.
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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond the schema. It mentions 'PHP version' but doesn't elaborate on formatting or constraints beyond the schema's example. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('Change') and the resource ('PHP version for an environment'), which is distinct from sibling tools like restart-php or clear-cache. It also notes the return value (operation_id), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.