wp-cli-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether authentication is required, what happens with invalid IDs (e.g., error vs. null response), rate limits, or response format. This leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented for a tool that retrieves data.

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 6 words, front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly while scanning available tools.

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?

For a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what data is returned (post object fields), error handling, authentication requirements, or how it differs from similar tools. The agent would need to guess important contextual details about this tool's behavior.

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 the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Post ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline for adequate but unenriched parameter documentation.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a single post by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like wp_post_list or wp_post_create, which would require explicit comparison to achieve 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wp_post_list (for multiple posts) or wp_post_update (for modifying posts). It lacks context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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