Reads one approved WordPress option value and its schema for a configured site, letting MCP clients inspect settings with a scoped API key.
Read one approved option value and its schema.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | No | Configured site name from aism_sites. Omit for the default site. | |
| option | Yes | Exact option name approved for this API key. |
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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful constraint that only options 'approved' for the API key are readable and that schema metadata is returned, but says nothing about error behavior for unapproved names or about site scoping.
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?
One short sentence with the resource and return content front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description discloses that the response includes the value plus its schema, which is the key return-shape fact. For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, little is missing beyond failure-mode details.
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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the site scoping and option name pattern. The description contributes only the 'approved option' qualification, which is already reflected in the schema's 'approved for this API key' wording, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Read') and resource ('one approved option value and its schema'). The word 'one' implicitly contrasts with the list sibling (aism_settings_list), but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
Usage is only implied: read a single approved option, versus list for enumeration or update for writes. There is no explicit 'use this when' guidance or named alternative, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.