Handsome Hosting

WordPress admin login link

wp_login

Destructive

A one-time link that signs the person into wp-admin of a live WordPress site as its administrator, for the person's own browser; it works once and expires in 4 minutes. Refusals: not-wordpress, not-live.

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": {
      "serviceId": "<serviceId>"
    },
    "name": "wp_login"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`serviceId`	Yes	the id of a service on this account

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`error`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / serviceId / description

Previous value: -"the service id from list_services"New value: +"the id of a service on this account"

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: single use, 4-minute expiry, browser-bound, and the refusal conditions. The annotations only say readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=true, whereas the description conveys the real risk profile (administrator credentials granted). It does not explicitly warn that the returned link is a secret that must not be logged or shared, nor what happens if called twice.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, both earning their place: the capability and its lifetime come first, the refusal codes last. No filler, no restating the title.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the single parameter is fully documented. For a credential-minting tool the remaining gap is small but real: no mention of what to do when the link expires (call again) or how this relates to wp_app_password.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a single required parameter, so the schema already carries serviceId's meaning. The description adds only indirect value by implying the service must be a live WordPress service (via the not-wordpress/not-live refusals). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific artifact (a one-time login link), a specific target (wp-admin of a live WordPress site), and the resulting state (signed in as administrator). An agent can distinguish this from wp_app_password or wp_status without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear usage context ('for the person's own browser') and enumerates failure preconditions ('Refusals: not-wordpress, not-live'), which effectively tells the agent when not to reach for it. It stops short of naming an alternative — e.g. wp_app_password for programmatic/API access — which is the one obvious routing decision left to inference.

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

All Handsome Hosting tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?