mainwp_get_setup_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it retries a failed connection and reports which user was rejected plus the provenance of each credential value, which an agent could not infer from the annotations.

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?

Three tightly-scoped sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the call-first directive. Every sentence adds a distinct condition (no connection, retry, credential rejection) with no 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so — setup instructions to surface to the user, rejection details, credential provenance. A brief note on the shape of the returned instructions would close the remaining 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument diagnostic call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — reports whether the MainWP MCP server is connected to a Dashboard and returns setup instructions. It is clearly distinguishable in spirit from mainwp_configure, though it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is implied rather than 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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: 'Call this first when MainWP tools are missing.' It also explains the retry case (credentials present but Dashboard unreachable). It stops short of naming mainwp_configure as the alternative for acting on the reported status.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.