Read native schemas and endpoint arguments for a WordPress resource before working with it, so API calls use correct fields and types.
Read native schemas and endpoint arguments before working with a resource.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | No | Configured site name from aism_sites. Omit for the default site. | |
| resource | 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?
The description's 'read' matches readOnlyHint=true and is consistent with non-destructive/idempotent annotations, so no contradiction. However, it adds little behavioral context beyond the annotations — no mention of caching, freshness, or that results are site-scoped, which would matter for a schema introspection call.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity is partly what leaves gaps elsewhere.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back; 'schemas and endpoint arguments' gives a rough idea of the return payload but not its structure. Combined with the undocumented required resource parameter, an agent has enough to attempt a call but not to use the result confidently.
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%: the site parameter is documented, but the required 'resource' parameter has no description in either the schema or the tool description, despite accepting an anyOf of a free-form pattern and a plugins/themes enum. The description does not explain what valid resource values are or how they map to endpoints, leaving the single required parameter ambiguous.
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 verb (read) and an object (native schemas and endpoint arguments), but 'native schemas' is opaque jargon an agent cannot resolve without prior knowledge. It does not distinguish itself from discovery-oriented siblings such as aism_discover or aism_guide, which plausibly serve overlapping purposes.
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 clause 'before working with a resource' implies a sequencing prerequisite, which is useful, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative routing is given. Nothing tells the agent why to pick this over aism_discover or aism_guide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.