Get Current User
wp_get_current_userGet information about the currently authenticated WordPress user.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_id | No | Site ID to target (optional if you have only one connected site) |
wp_get_current_userGet information about the currently authenticated WordPress user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_id | No | Site ID to target (optional if you have only one connected site) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the user is resolved from the authentication context rather than a parameter, but says nothing about what fields come back or what happens when unauthenticated.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and its scope arrive in the first few words.
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, so the description is the only place return fields could be described, and it only says 'information' without naming any fields. For a simple one-parameter read tool the gap is minor but real.
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_id parameter is already documented with its optionality in the schema. The description adds no syntax or multi-site targeting detail beyond that, 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get information about the currently authenticated WordPress user.' The word 'current' scopes it apart from wp_list_users and wp_get_site_info, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative wp_list_users for fetching other users. The agent must infer that this is for the session's own identity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.