sweipe_ai_libraryLists available site templates with design previews and required plugins, providing the slugs needed to plan and build a WordPress site.
The templates a site can be planned from (slug, name, what the design looks like, required plugins). Pass a slug as base to sweipe_ai_plan, or let the planner pick.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the informational nature of the tool by framing it as a template library and enumerating expected result fields. However, it does not explicitly state that the call is read-only, that it returns a list, or any other behavioral guarantees, leaving some of that to inference.
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?
The description is two sentences and front-loads the essential definition before giving the downstream integration hint. There is no filler or redundancy. It earns its place, though it could be marginally improved by adding an explicit action verb.
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 and no annotations, the description must do most of the documentation work. It covers the semantic content of the library and how the data feeds into planning, which is helpful. But it does not specify the return shape (e.g., list of template objects) or clarify whether the planner automatically picks from all templates, leaving small but real gaps.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage for parameters is vacuously 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter documentation for this tool, which is fine since there are none; it instead explains the meaning of the `base` parameter used by a sibling tool, which is useful context.
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 clearly names the resource ('templates a site can be planned from') and lists the key fields (slug, name, design, required plugins), so an agent can tell what domain object this tool exposes. It also connects to sweipe_ai_plan, which helps distinguish it from planning itself. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve,' so the operation is inferred rather than directly 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 useful workflow context: a returned slug can be passed as `base` to sweipe_ai_plan, or the planner can choose. This implies when the tool is relevant, but it never explicitly states when to call this tool versus siblings or when not to use it. The usage guidance is present but implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.