Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

WordPress MCP by InsightfulPipe

by com.insightfulpipe
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

WordPress Data Query

query_data
Read-only

Query WordPress data (Step 3 (FINAL) of workflow).

REQUIRED: Complete these steps first using query_contexts:

  1. request='accounts' - Get workspace_id, brand_id AND available_actions

  2. request='actions_details' with actions=['xxxxxx', 'xxxxxx', 'xxxxxx'] - Get detailed body structure for specific action(s) using actions from available_actions

IMPORTANT: Always call step 2 to see the exact body structure before querying.

Rely on info from steps 1-2 to construct the query body. Follow the schema exactly.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "query_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: this tool depends on two prior query_contexts calls and will not work correctly without them. It says nothing about result shape or limits, but an output schema exists, so the gap is modest.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the workflow position and then a numbered prerequisite list, which is easy to act on. There is mild redundancy between the numbered steps and the closing sentence "Rely on info from steps 1-2", but nothing is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an opaque free-form body tool with no schema documentation, the description supplies the one thing the agent actually needs: the lookup path to the correct body structure. Combined with an output schema and read-only annotations, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter is a free-form object at 0% schema coverage, so the description carries the burden. It meets that burden by directing the agent to obtain the exact body structure from query_contexts/actions_details and to "Follow the schema exactly", which is actionable even though it does not name body fields itself.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a verb and resource ("Query WordPress data") and positions itself as the final step of a workflow, but "WordPress data" is extremely broad and it never says what kinds of data or queries are supported. It also gives no differentiation from the sibling execute_action, which is a real risk given the repeated talk of "actions" and "body structure".

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit prerequisites are spelled out and ordered: call query_contexts with request='accounts', then request='actions_details', and "Always call step 2". That is clear when/how-to-use context. It stops short of exclusions or a comparison to execute_action, so it does not reach a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All WordPress MCP by InsightfulPipe toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources