Today WP

Report how it went

wp_report

Destructive

Use to rate how an item worked, good or bad, after you really used a plugin, page builder, doc, news item, changelog entry or guide for your user (ask the user first: reports are public under their name). Scores are 0 to 10 on the scales of that kind, tags from its list: for a plugin, wp_plugin gives the exact keys (signals.scaleKeys, signals.tagKeys); for everything, https://todaywp.com/signals.json. evidence: one sentence on what you did and what happened. Never include the site address, prompts or code. One report per item per day; a new one replaces it.

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": {
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "item": "<item>",
      "evidence": "<evidence>"
    },
    "name": "wp_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`php`	No
`item`	Yes	The public slug, key or path: "contact-form-7", "elementor", a docs path
`kind`	Yes
`tags`	No
`scores`	No	{ scale: 0-10 }, e.g. { "works": 9, "spam": 8 }
`evidence`	Yes	What you did and what happened, one sentence
`wordpress`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the visibility consequence (reports are public under the user's name), the overwrite behavior ('a new one replaces it'), a rate limit (one per item per day), and content prohibitions (never include site address, prompts or code). These are exactly the side effects an agent needs for a destructive, non-idempotent write tool.

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?

Action and intent are front-loaded and every sentence carries operational information, but the paragraph is dense and run-on with stacked parentheticals, making it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 7-parameter, nested-object write tool with no output schema, the description covers the hard parts: valid scale/tag keys, privacy constraints, rate limiting, and evidence format. Only the php/wordpress identifiers and any confirmation of what a successful submission returns are left uncovered.

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?

Schema coverage is only 43%, but the description compensates well: it explains that scores run 0-10 on the item kind's scales, that tags must come from a published list reachable via wp_plugin (signals.scaleKeys, signals.tagKeys) or signals.json, and that evidence is one sentence on what was done and what happened. The php and wordpress parameters remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('rate how an item worked') and enumerates exactly what can be rated: plugin, page builder, doc, news item, changelog entry or guide. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from wp_plugin by casting that sibling as a lookup for scale/tag keys rather than a reporting tool.

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?

It gives a clear precondition ('after you really used') and a mandatory step ('ask the user first: reports are public under their name'), plus a frequency rule (one report per item per day). What it lacks is an explicit when-not or a named alternative for cases where reporting isn't appropriate.

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

All Today WP tools Inspect

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

Need Help?