Installs a local plugin ZIP as an inactive plugin without replacing existing plugins, enabling plugin upload to a configured WordPress site.
Install a new local plugin ZIP inactive without replacing existing plugins. Requires plugins:write plus native install/upload capabilities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | No | Configured site name from aism_sites. Omit for the default site. | |
| file_path | 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?
Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing two important behaviors: the plugin is installed inactive, and it will not replace an existing plugin. It also flags the required permissions/capabilities. It leaves unexplained what 'native install/upload capabilities' concretely means and what happens on a name collision.
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?
Two short sentences, both front-loaded with the action and its key side-effect constraint, followed by the permission requirement. No filler.
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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers action, side effects, overwrite behavior, and prerequisites. It stops short of describing failure modes or what is returned after a successful upload.
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 only 50% (file_path has no description beyond minLength), but the description compensates by indicating the expected input is a local plugin ZIP file path. The site parameter is fully documented in the schema, so no further description is needed.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Install a new local plugin ZIP') and adds scope qualifiers ('inactive', 'without replacing existing plugins'). It implicitly separates itself from aism_plugin_install by specifying a local ZIP source, though it never names the sibling explicitly.
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?
It supplies a precondition ('Requires plugins:write plus native install/upload capabilities') and the 'local plugin ZIP' framing hints at when to choose it over a slug/registry install. However, with aism_plugin_install and aism_theme_upload in the sibling list, no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-that guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.