wp-cli-mcp

Does 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 it 'gets' a value, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns cached data, or what happens if the option doesn't exist. For a 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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (single parameter, read operation) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but not complete. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention what type of data is returned (string, array, etc.) or common use cases. The description meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in behavioral context.

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 single parameter 'key' well-documented with examples. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_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 verb ('Get') and resource ('WordPress option value'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like wp_option_update (which modifies options) and wp_post_get (which retrieves posts). However, it doesn't specify what type of options it retrieves (site settings, theme options, etc.), which prevents 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 retrieve a WordPress option value, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like wp_post_get for posts or wp_plugin_list for plugins. It doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others in the sibling list.

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