Retrieve available plugin updates from WordPress.org to identify which plugins need updating.
List available plugin updates from WordPress.org
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "wp_get_plugin_updates"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' communicates a read-only operation and 'from WordPress.org' specifies the data source, but the description does not mention remote API calls, potential latency, caching, or what an update record contains.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'List available plugin updates from WordPress.org' is compact, clear, and every word contributes meaning.
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 zero-parameter read-only operation, invocation is trivially complete: the description names the task and source. However, there is no output schema and the description does not hint at returned fields such as plugin name, current version, or available version, leaving a minor gap for agents that need to act on results.
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 input schema has zero properties, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. Baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately omits parameter details.
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 the exact action ('List') and resource ('available plugin updates') and adds the source 'from WordPress.org'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wp_list_plugins (installed plugins) and plugin lifecycle tools like wp_activate_plugin.
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 intended use—checking for pending plugin updates—is strongly implied by 'available plugin updates', but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives. An agent must infer how it relates to wp_list_plugins and plugin management tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.