Export WordPress database to an SQL file for backup or migration using WP-CLI commands.
Export database to SQL file
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_db_export"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | No | Output filename |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Export') but doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, if it's a read-only or destructive operation, what happens during the export process, or any rate limits. For a database export tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the core action. Every word earns its place by specifying what's being exported and to what format. There's zero waste or redundancy.
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 this is a database export tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the export contains, where the file is saved, whether it's a full or partial export, or any error conditions. For a tool that presumably creates SQL files from a database, more context is needed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% with one parameter ('filename') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
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 ('Export') and resource ('database to SQL file'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'wp_db_query' or 'wp_search_replace' that might also interact with the database, so it doesn't achieve full sibling differentiation.
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. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison to sibling tools like 'wp_db_query' for database interactions. It's a basic statement of function without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.