Skip to main content
Glama
gaupoit

WordPress MCP Server

by gaupoit

wp_site_info

Retrieve WordPress site details including name, description, URL, timezone, and GMT offset to understand site configuration and settings.

Instructions

Get WordPress site information.

Returns:
    Site info including name, description, url, home, gmt_offset, and timezone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function for the wp_site_info tool. Retrieves the shared WordPressClient instance and delegates to its get_site_info() method. The @mcp.tool() decorator registers the tool with the MCP server and infers schema from signature/docstring.
    @mcp.tool()
    def wp_site_info() -> dict:
        """Get WordPress site information.
    
        Returns:
            Site info including name, description, url, home, gmt_offset, and timezone.
        """
        client = get_client()
        return client.get_site_info()
  • Core helper method in WordPressClient that implements the site information retrieval by querying the WordPress REST API root endpoint (/wp-json), parsing the response, and returning a formatted dictionary with site details.
    def get_site_info(self) -> dict:
        """Get site information."""
        # Use the root endpoint for site info
        url = f"{self.config.url.rstrip('/')}/wp-json"
        headers = self._get_headers()
    
        response = self._client.get(url, headers=headers)
        response.raise_for_status()
        data = response.json()
    
        return {
            "name": data.get("name", ""),
            "description": data.get("description", ""),
            "url": data.get("url", ""),
            "home": data.get("home", ""),
            "gmt_offset": data.get("gmt_offset", 0),
            "timezone_string": data.get("timezone_string", ""),
        }
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. It states the tool returns site information and lists specific fields, but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, error conditions, or the format of the return data. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably queries a WordPress site.

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 well-structured and appropriately concise, with the purpose stated upfront followed by a clear list of return fields. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, though minor improvements in formatting could make it perfect.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks context about authentication, errors, or how it fits with sibling tools. For a basic read operation, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and the baseline for this situation is 4, as it avoids unnecessary repetition while focusing on the tool's purpose and output.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('WordPress site information'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'wp_get_posts' or 'wp_get_plugins' beyond the resource type, which prevents 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. With sibling tools like 'wp_get_posts' and 'wp_get_plugins' available, there's no indication of whether this tool is for general site metadata, how it relates to other get operations, or any prerequisites for its use.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/gaupoit/wordpress-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server