wp-cli-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Check for') but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or indicates success/failure. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how it behaves.

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 'Check for WordPress core updates' is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. There is zero waste—every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 moderate complexity (checking for updates) with no annotations, 0 parameters, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the check entails (e.g., remote API call, local version comparison), what it returns (e.g., update availability, version details), or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely involves external checks, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't introduce any confusion about parameters. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary 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?

The description 'Check for WordPress core updates' clearly states the verb ('Check for') and resource ('WordPress core updates'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like wp_core_version (which returns current version) and wp_plugin_list (which checks plugins). However, it doesn't specify what constitutes an 'update' (e.g., security patches, major versions), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 usage when needing to verify if WordPress core has available updates, which is reasonable context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like wp_core_version for current version or wp_plugin_list for plugin updates, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., admin access) or exclusions. This leaves usage somewhat open to interpretation.

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