Installs a WordPress.org plugin in an inactive state on a configured site; requires plugins write access and native install capability.
Install a WordPress.org plugin inactive. Requires plugins:write and native install capability. Installation adds executable code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | No | Configured site name from aism_sites. Omit for the default site. | |
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Input schema / properties / siteAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Configured site name from aism_sites. Omit for the default site.",
+ "pattern": "^[a-zA-Z0-9_.-]{1,64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare write, destructive, openWorld and non-idempotent, yet the description adds real value beyond them: the plugin is installed but left inactive, a capability/permission prerequisite, and a security warning that installation adds executable code. It does not say what happens if the plugin is already installed, which is the main remaining gap.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and result state, then prerequisites, then risk. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of schema or annotations.
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 two-parameter mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers permission needs, the resulting state, and the risk. Only idempotency behavior in the already-installed case is left unstated.
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 coverage is 50%: 'site' is documented in the schema while 'slug' is not. The description partially compensates by tying the slug to a WordPress.org plugin, implying a repo slug rather than an arbitrary path, but it adds no format or validation detail beyond that.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Install a WordPress.org plugin') plus an important result state ('inactive'), which distinguishes it from aism_plugin_upload and aism_plugin_update. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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 gives a prerequisite ('Requires plugins:write and native install capability') but no guidance on when to choose this over aism_plugin_upload (arbitrary zip) or aism_plugin_update. Usage context is implied by 'WordPress.org' but never spelled out as an alternative-selection rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.