Lists approved settings option names and schemas for a configured WordPress site, so you can discover valid options without exposing stored values.
List exact approved option names and schemas; does not return values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | No | Configured site name from aism_sites. Omit for the default site. |
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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by explicitly stating no values are returned, heading off the expectation that 'list' produces setting contents.
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 compact sentence with the exclusion clause front-loaded alongside the purpose; nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.
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?
Adequate for a read-only one-parameter metadata tool: the schema covers the site argument, annotations cover safety, and the description rules out returning values. It could still note what the schema entries look like or point to aism_settings_update as the consumer, but nothing essential is missing.
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 100% and the single 'site' parameter is fully documented, including its link to aism_sites and the default-site behavior. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb (list) plus a specific resource (approved option names and schemas), and the clause 'does not return values' distinguishes it from aism_settings_get. Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than named, keeping it short of a 5.
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: the 'approved option names and schemas' framing suggests calling this before aism_settings_get/update to learn valid keys, but neither the alternative tools nor the when-not condition are stated. An agent must infer the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.