List installed WordPress plugins and their current status to manage site functionality and troubleshoot issues.
List all installed plugins with status
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_plugin_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 states the action ('List') but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like (e.g., list of objects with names and statuses), if there are rate limits, or if it requires specific permissions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding 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 is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action ('List') and resource ('all installed plugins with status'), making it easy to scan. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.
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 low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is complete enough for basic understanding. It covers what the tool does but lacks details on output format, permissions, or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must infer behavior from the description alone, which is adequate but not comprehensive.
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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids mentioning any. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, where minimal description is sufficient.
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 ('List') and resource ('all installed plugins with status'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like wp_plugin_activate or wp_plugin_search by focusing on listing rather than modifying or searching. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from wp_theme_list or wp_menu_list, which follow similar patterns for other resources.
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., WordPress installation), exclusions (e.g., not for uninstalled plugins), or comparisons to siblings like wp_plugin_search for finding plugins not yet installed. Usage is implied by the name and purpose but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.