wp-cli-mcp

wp_scaffold_plugin

Generate a WordPress plugin skeleton with a specified slug to accelerate development and ensure proper structure.

Instructions

Generate a plugin skeleton

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "wp_scaffold_plugin"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	Plugin slug

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Generate' implies creation/writing, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this creates files locally, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the output looks like. For a tool that likely creates WordPress plugin files, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely creates files (implied by 'generate'), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'plugin skeleton' includes, where files are created, or what happens on success/failure. For a scaffolding tool, more context about the generated structure would be helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'slug' documented as 'Plugin slug'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Generate a plugin skeleton' clearly states the action (generate) and resource (plugin skeleton), which is specific enough to understand the tool's function. It distinguishes from most siblings like plugin management tools (activate, deactivate, install) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other scaffold tools (wp_scaffold_block, wp_scaffold_theme).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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, when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like wp_scaffold_block or wp_scaffold_theme. The agent must 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.