wp-cli-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'read-only recommended,' which hints at safety concerns, but doesn't specify permissions required, potential side effects (e.g., performance impact), rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., result format, error messages). For a tool that executes raw SQL with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Execute a raw SQL query') and includes a crucial caution ('read-only recommended'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise 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 complexity of executing raw SQL queries, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on security implications, expected return formats, error handling, and performance considerations. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use, especially compared to siblings with more specific purposes like wp_post_list or wp_option_get.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'sql' parameter clearly documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the query should be 'read-only recommended,' but doesn't provide additional semantics like supported SQL dialects, query length limits, or parameter binding. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb ('execute') and resource ('raw SQL query'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like wp_db_export (which exports data) or wp_option_get (which retrieves specific options), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other query-related tools since none are listed. The 'read-only recommended' adds nuance but doesn't fully differentiate from potential write operations.

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 for executing SQL queries, with 'read-only recommended' suggesting caution for write operations, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance is provided on prerequisites, error handling, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over other data retrieval methods like wp_post_list or wp_option_get.

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