Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
Leonelberio

WordPress MCP Server

by Leonelberio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

WordPress MCP サーバー

Windows、macOS、Linux と互換性のある、WordPress 統合用のモデル コンテキスト プロトコル (MCP) サーバー。

概要

このMCPサーバーは、WordPress REST APIを介してWordPressサイトとのやり取りを可能にします。JSON-RPC 2.0プロトコルを使用して投稿を作成、取得、更新するためのツールを提供します。

Related MCP server: WordPress MCP Server

インストール

  1. リポジトリをクローンする

  2. 依存関係をインストールします:

npm install

  1. プロジェクトをビルドします。

npm run build

構成

WordPress 資格情報の環境変数を使用して、サーバーを MCP 設定ファイルに追加します。

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "wordpress": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["path/to/build/index.js"],
      "env": {
        "WORDPRESS_SITE_URL": "https://your-wordpress-site.com",
        "WORDPRESS_USERNAME": "your-username",
        "WORDPRESS_PASSWORD": "your-app-password"
      }
    }
  }
}

環境変数は次のとおりです。

  • WORDPRESS_SITE_URL: WordPressサイトのURL

  • WORDPRESS_USERNAME: WordPressユーザー名

  • WORDPRESS_PASSWORD: WordPressアプリケーションのパスワード

環境変数を使用したくない場合は、リクエストパラメータでこれらの資格情報を提供することもできます。

利用可能な方法

投稿を作成

新しい WordPress 投稿を作成します。

パラメータ:

  • siteUrl: (env で設定されている場合オプション) WordPress サイトの URL

  • ユーザー名: (envで設定されている場合オプション) WordPressユーザー名

  • パスワード: (env で設定されている場合オプション) WordPress アプリケーションのパスワード

  • タイトル: 投稿タイトル

  • コンテンツ: 投稿内容

  • ステータス: (オプション)「下書き」 | 「公開」 | 「非公開」(デフォルト:「下書き」)

get_posts

WordPress の投稿を取得します。

パラメータ:

  • siteUrl: (env で設定されている場合オプション) WordPress サイトの URL

  • ユーザー名: (envで設定されている場合オプション) WordPressユーザー名

  • パスワード: (env で設定されている場合オプション) WordPress アプリケーションのパスワード

  • perPage: (オプション) ページあたりの投稿数 (デフォルト: 10)

  • ページ: (オプション) ページ番号 (デフォルト: 1)

更新投稿

既存の WordPress 投稿を更新します。

パラメータ:

  • siteUrl: (env で設定されている場合オプション) WordPress サイトの URL

  • ユーザー名: (envで設定されている場合オプション) WordPressユーザー名

  • パスワード: (env で設定されている場合オプション) WordPress アプリケーションのパスワード

  • postId: 更新する投稿のID

  • タイトル: (オプション) 新しい投稿のタイトル

  • コンテンツ: (オプション) 新しい投稿の内容

  • ステータス: (オプション)「下書き」 | 「公開」 | 「非公開」

セキュリティに関する注意事項

セキュリティのため、メインアカウントのパスワードではなく、WordPressアプリケーションパスワードを使用することをお勧めします。アプリケーションパスワードは、WordPressダッシュボードの「ユーザー」→「セキュリティ」→「アプリケーションパスワード」で生成できます。

使用例

環境変数の使用:

{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "id": 1,
  "method": "create_post",
  "params": {
    "title": "My New Post",
    "content": "Hello World!",
    "status": "draft"
  }
}

環境変数なし:

{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "id": 1,
  "method": "create_post",
  "params": {
    "siteUrl": "https://your-wordpress-site.com",
    "username": "your-username",
    "password": "your-app-password",
    "title": "My New Post",
    "content": "Hello World!",
    "status": "draft"
  }
}

要件

  • Node.js 20.0.0以上

  • REST API が有効になっている WordPress サイト

  • 認証用のWordPressアプリケーションのパスワード

ライセンス

MITライセンス - 詳細はLICENSEファイルを参照

Available Tools

3 tools
create_postC

Create a new WordPress post

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesPost content
passwordNoWordPress password (overrides WORDPRESS_PASSWORD env var)
siteUrlNoWordPress site URL (overrides WORDPRESS_SITE_URL env var)
statusNoPost status (draft, publish, etc.)draft
titleYesPost title
usernameNoWordPress username (overrides WORDPRESS_USERNAME env var)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' implies a write operation but fails to mention authentication requirements, potential side effects (e.g., publishing status), or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to scan and understand quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, post-creation behavior (e.g., default status), error cases, or how it differs from sibling tools, leaving critical context gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage nuances, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new WordPress post'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_post' beyond the basic action, missing explicit distinction about when to create versus update.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_post' or 'get_posts'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as authentication or site setup, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic action.

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

get_postsC

Get WordPress posts

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number
passwordNoWordPress password (overrides WORDPRESS_PASSWORD env var)
perPageNoNumber of posts per page
siteUrlNoWordPress site URL (overrides WORDPRESS_SITE_URL env var)
usernameNoWordPress username (overrides WORDPRESS_USERNAME env var)

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get WordPress posts' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, how it handles pagination, what the return format is, or any rate limits. The description is too minimal to provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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?

The description 'Get WordPress posts' is extremely concise—just three words—and front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding. It earns a high score for brevity and directness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how authentication works (implied by parameters but not stated), or any behavioral traits. With no output schema and minimal description, it fails to provide enough context for effective use by an AI agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all 5 parameters (e.g., 'page', 'perPage', 'siteUrl'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Get WordPress posts' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('WordPress posts'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'Get' entails (e.g., listing, retrieving, filtering) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_post' or 'update_post', which are clearly different operations. This makes it vague but not tautological.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to use it over other post-related tools or under what conditions it's appropriate. This leaves the agent without usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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

update_postC

Update an existing WordPress post

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentNoNew post content
passwordNoWordPress password (overrides WORDPRESS_PASSWORD env var)
postIdYesPost ID to update
siteUrlNoWordPress site URL (overrides WORDPRESS_SITE_URL env var)
statusNoNew post status (draft, publish, etc.)
titleNoNew post title
usernameNoWordPress username (overrides WORDPRESS_USERNAME env var)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements (though parameters suggest them), permission levels, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand what the tool does.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain authentication requirements (implied by parameters but not stated), error conditions, return values, or behavioral nuances. The agent would need to rely heavily on the schema and trial-and-error.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline of 3 reflects that the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('an existing WordPress post'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'create_post' tool beyond the obvious 'existing' vs 'new' distinction, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_post' or 'get_posts'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 3 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedcreate_post
    • First observedget_posts
    • First observedupdate_post
Deploy Server
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

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Scored across 3 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting different CRUD operations: create_post for creation, get_posts for retrieval, and update_post for modification. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_post, get_posts, update_post) with no deviations in style or convention. This predictability enhances readability and usability for agents.

Tool Count3/5

With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for a WordPress server, as it lacks delete_post and other common operations like managing pages or media. While the tools cover basic post CRUD, the scope is limited and may not support full agent workflows.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface is significantly incomplete for WordPress management. It includes create, get, and update for posts but omits delete_post, as well as tools for pages, media, users, or settings, leaving notable gaps that could cause agent failures in broader tasks.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches