Frontman for WordPress

wp_find_users

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find candidate accounts only for a user-requested author task, not bulk background discovery. Distinguish login from display name and consider remaining pages. If identity is ambiguous, ask which account; never choose the first result or guess IDs. Candidates are not proof of assignment eligibility. After assigning an author with wp_create_post or wp_update_post, read back with wp_read_post.

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": {
      "site_id": "<site_id>",
      "search": "<search>",
      "match_by": "<match_by>"
    },
    "name": "wp_find_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No
`search`	Yes	Trimmed nonempty literal substring, at most 100 Unicode characters. Must not start or end with * after whitespace trimming (including asterisk-only input). Interior *, %, _, and quotes are literal. Case sensitivity depends on database collation.
`site_id`	Yes	The connected site's id returned by list_sites. Call list_sites first; do not use a URL or WordPress post ID.
`match_by`	Yes	Search only this column; never implicitly search email.
`per_page`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are candidates rather than proof of assignment eligibility, ambiguous identities should not be guessed, and remaining pages must be considered.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the key usage restriction and each sentence contributes workflow or safety guidance. It is dense but not padded, though the shift from search constraints to downstream post-assignment verification is slightly abrupt.

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 read-only lookup tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important decision points: when to search, how to handle ambiguity, and how to verify assignment afterward. Return fields are not described, but the schema and annotations reduce the need for that.

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 60%, so several parameters are documented in the schema itself, including detailed search constraints and the match_by enum. The description reinforces distinguishing login from display name and hints at pagination, but does not add meaning for page or per_page beyond what the schema already provides.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource, 'Find candidate accounts', and scopes it to a user-requested author task. It does not plainly say it searches WordPress users by login or display name, leaving the schema and match_by enum to carry that detail, but the overall purpose is clear.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly states when to use the tool (user-requested author task) and when not to use it (bulk background discovery). It also gives concrete handling guidance for ambiguous identity and names a downstream verification step with wp_read_post.

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

All Frontman for WordPress 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.