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. 'Deactivate' implies a mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires admin permissions, if deactivation is reversible, potential site impact (e.g., broken functionality), or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 with zero waste—'Deactivate a plugin' is front-loaded and directly conveys the core action. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (a mutation with potential site impact), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral disclosure, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover return values, error cases, or operational consequences, leaving the agent under-informed for safe and effective use.

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% (the 'slug' parameter is documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain slug format, examples, or how to obtain it from wp_plugin_list. This meets minimum viability but doesn't enhance 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 ('Deactivate') and resource ('a plugin'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like wp_plugin_activate and wp_plugin_delete by specifying the exact action. However, it doesn't explicitly mention WordPress context or differentiate from wp_theme_activate, leaving minor room for improvement.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., plugin must be active), contrast with wp_plugin_delete (remove vs. deactivate), or specify scenarios like troubleshooting or updates. This lack of context could lead to misuse among similar plugin management tools.

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