Skip to main content
Glama

Opus Growth, Ad Platforms MCP Connector

Search WordPress Content

wordpress_search_content
Read-onlyIdempotent

Finds the WordPress posts/pages that contain an EXACT string (or regex) in their content or title — the precise search wordpress_list_posts(search=...) cannot do, because WordPress' own search is fuzzy and word-tokenised (it matches a shortcode like [vc_column_text] on every WPBakery page, and misses bracketed or punctuated tokens). Use it to locate a stale phone number, an outdated claim, or a broken shortcode across a whole site before fixing it, then feed the returned ids to wordpress_bulk_replace. search_in = "content" (default) | "title" | "both". regex=true treats query as a Python regular expression; otherwise it is a literal, case-sensitive substring. type filters post types ("page", "post" or "page,post"; empty scans both). status defaults to "publish". It scans up to max_scan posts (hard cap 400), newest-first, and tells you if the site has more than that. Every post is fetched one by one (~1 s each on a typical host), so one call stops after about 110 seconds and returns what it found so far with partial=true and next_offset; call again with offset=next_offset (same other arguments) to continue where it stopped. Each hit returns id, slug, title, type, match_count and a short snippet around the first match; the hit list is capped so the result stays small. Read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNo
queryYes
regexNo
offsetNo
statusNopublish
max_scanNo
site_urlNo
search_inNocontent

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added
  4. Removed
  5. Added
  6. Removed
  7. Added
  8. Removed
  9. Added
  10. Removed
  11. Added
  12. Removed
  13. Added
  14. Removed
  15. Added
  16. Removed
  17. Added
  18. Removed
  19. Added
  20. Removed
  21. Added
  22. Removed
  23. Added
  24. Removed
  25. Added
  26. Removed
  27. Added
  28. Removed
  29. Added
  30. Removed
  31. Added
  32. Removed
  33. Added
  34. Removed
  35. Added
  36. Removed
  37. Added
  38. Removed
  39. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which only cover read-only/idempotent/no-destructive), the description discloses operational realities: ~1s per post fetched one by one, a ~110s per-call ceiling, partial=true with next_offset for continuation, a 400-item hard cap on max_scan, newest-first ordering, and a capped hit list. This is exactly the behavior an agent needs to plan around.

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-loads purpose and the sibling contrast before moving into mechanics, and every sentence carries information. It is a dense wall of text, but given 8 parameters and pagination semantics, the length is defensible rather than 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?

Covers purpose, alternatives, parameter semantics, return shape, and the pagination/continuation protocol. With an output schema present and annotations carrying the safety profile, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: it defines search_in values (content/title/both), regex semantics, literal case-sensitive substring behavior, type filter syntax ('page,post' or empty), status default, and the max_scan/offset continuation contract. Only site_url is left implicitly understood.

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 verb and resource ('Finds the WordPress posts/pages that contain an EXACT string') and immediately scopes it against the sibling, explaining why wordpress_list_posts(search=...) cannot do the same job. An agent can distinguish this from other search/list tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names when to use it ('locate a stale phone number, an outdated claim, or a broken shortcode') and the downstream step ('feed the returned ids to wordpress_bulk_replace'), while also flagging the alternate tool it supersedes. Nothing is left to inference.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.