sweipe_statusCheck WordPress site status: theme, plugins, license, AI configuration, and AI site plan stage. Use this initial assessment to guide setup and management.
What this WordPress install is (theme, plugin, Elementor, WooCommerce), whether the licence is active, whether AI is enabled and configured, and where the AI site plan stands (planned, built, reviewed). Call this first.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It says what data is reported but does not explicitly state that the call is read-only or free of side effects. The phrase 'Call this first' and the word 'status' imply a safe orientation read, so this is adequate but not fully transparent.
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 a single sentence that front-loads all relevant status categories and ends with a clear directive to call it first. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return content categories and gives a suggested call order. It does not specify exact response format or field names, but for a zero-parameter status tool this is adequate and leaves little ambiguity about what the agent will learn.
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 description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The description appropriately invents no parameter details, which matches the baseline for a parameterless tool.
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 names the resource ('this WordPress install') and enumerates the status dimensions it reports: theme/plugin/Elementor/WooCommerce, licence activity, AI enabled/configured, and AI site plan stage. The verb is implicit rather than explicit ('status' appears in the title), but the content is specific and distinguishes this from import/AI action siblings.
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 an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Call this first.' This clearly positions the tool as the entry-point or orientation call before acting on the site. It does not enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the ordering guidance supplies enough context for a zero-parameter status tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.