WordPress MCP

Official

by Automattic

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: create-post, get-post, search-posts, and update-post cover different CRUD operations for posts, while wordpress-block-types-schema provides metadata for content creation. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these tools.
Naming Consistency4/5
Four tools follow a consistent verb-noun pattern (create-post, get-post, search-posts, update-post), but wordpress-block-types-schema deviates with a longer, descriptive name. This minor inconsistency slightly reduces the overall naming coherence.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for managing WordPress posts. The count is appropriate for the domain, covering core operations without being overly sparse or bloated, and each tool serves a clear purpose.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides good coverage for WordPress post management with create, read, update, and search operations, plus block type information. A minor gap is the lack of a delete-post tool, which agents might need to work around, but core workflows are well-supported.
Average 2.9/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.
This repository is licensed under ISC License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'available WordPress block types' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, or how data is returned (e.g., list, schema). The description is vague and lacks critical operational details for a tool with no structured annotations.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's focus. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, though it could be more front-loaded with action verbs (e.g., 'List available WordPress block types...') to improve clarity without adding waste.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of block types, their schemas, or usage examples), which is crucial for a tool with no parameters. For a tool that likely provides data, more context on output behavior is needed to be fully helpful.
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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't have to compensate for any gaps.
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 states the tool provides 'available WordPress block types that can be used for content creation,' which gives a general purpose but lacks specificity about what action the tool performs (e.g., list, retrieve, or describe). It distinguishes from siblings like create-post or update-post by focusing on block types rather than posts, but doesn't clarify if it's a read operation or configuration tool.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it's for content creation, but it doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., before creating a post to know available blocks) or exclusions. Without annotations or context, usage is implied but not clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it publishes immediately, error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
Single sentence, zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a specific implementation detail ('using Gutenberg blocks') that adds value without verbosity. Every word earns its place.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (permissions, side effects), response format, or error conditions. Given the complexity of creating posts with Gutenberg blocks, more context is needed for effective agent use.
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 already documents both parameters (title and content) with detailed examples and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Create') and resource ('WordPress post') with the specific implementation detail 'using Gutenberg blocks'. It distinguishes from siblings like get-post (read) and update-post (modify), though not explicitly named. The purpose is specific but could more directly contrast with siblings.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update-post or search-posts. The description implies it's for new posts but doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., authentication, permissions) or exclusions (e.g., not for drafts). Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns errors for invalid IDs, or includes metadata like post content or status. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no 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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get a WordPress post by its ID') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it optimally concise.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., post content, author, date), error conditions, or authentication needs, leaving the agent with incomplete context for proper invocation.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'postId' documented as 'Post ID' with a minimum of 0. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or ID sources, 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 action ('Get') and resource ('a WordPress post by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search-posts' or 'wordpress-block-types-schema', 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 like 'search-posts' or 'create-post'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid post ID) or exclusions, 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions searching but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it returns partial matches, case sensitivity, pagination, rate limits, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational details.
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 waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose 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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of posts, error messages) or behavioral aspects like search scope or limitations, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand full usage.
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%, with the parameter 'title' documented as 'Post title or keyword'. The description adds minimal value by echoing 'title or keyword' but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states, such as search behavior or examples.
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 ('Search for') and resource ('WordPress posts'), and specifies the search criteria ('by title or keyword'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-post' or 'create-post', but the search functionality is distinct enough to imply differentiation.
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 'get-post' (which might retrieve a specific post by ID) or 'create-post'. It lacks explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling for invalid post IDs, or rate limits. It mentions Gutenberg blocks but doesn't explain what happens if content format is incorrect. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. However, it could be more structured by separating purpose from technical details, but this is minor given its brevity.
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 complexity (mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values. While the schema handles parameters well, the description fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use, especially for a write operation in a system like WordPress.
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%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema: postId as 'Post ID' and content with detailed format examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.
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 ('WordPress post') with specific technology context ('using Gutenberg blocks'). It distinguishes from create-post (creation vs update) and get-post/search-posts (read vs write), though not explicitly. The purpose is specific but could better differentiate from siblings like 'update-post' vs 'create-post' by mentioning it modifies existing posts.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing post ID), when to choose update-post over create-post for modifications, or any limitations. The description assumes context but provides no explicit usage rules, leaving the agent to infer 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.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![wordpress-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Automattic/wordpress-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Automattic/wordpress-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![wordpress-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Automattic/wordpress-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Automattic/wordpress-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/Automattic/wordpress-mcp'

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