mcp-wp-cli-terminus

by EarthmanWeb

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: wp_block operates on individual blocks, wp_cli runs generic WP-CLI commands, wp_clone_post copies posts to a new environment, wp_create_post creates new posts, wp_init_config sets up configuration, wp_sync_post syncs post content, and wp_sync_post_meta syncs meta. There is no overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (wp_create_post, wp_sync_post, etc.), but wp_block and wp_cli are noun-only, breaking consistency. The prefix 'wp_' is consistent, but the mix of naming styles is noticeable.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose: managing WordPress posts, blocks, and configuration across environments. Each tool is essential and there are no redundant or extraneous tools.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core workflow of cross-environment post management: creating, cloning, syncing content and meta, and block editing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated tool for updating post fields like title or status), but these can be handled via the generic wp_cli tool, preserving the server's focus on safe, high-level operations.
Average 4.6/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 6 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 16, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT 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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses destructive command blocking, production transport selection, and env override behavior. Lacks details on error states but covers major behavioral traits.
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?
Single dense paragraph efficiently covers all necessary aspects. Could be formatted with bullet points for readability, but no superfluous information present.
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?
Covers key aspects: configuration, target selection, destructive command protection. No output schema so return values not required. Lacks mention of error handling or output format, but acceptable for a CLI tool that returns raw WP-CLI output.
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 coverage is 100% but description adds significant context beyond schemas, such as how to format args (without 'wp'), how site selection works, that env is ignored for SSH/local, and the role of confirm in destructive commands.
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?
The description clearly states it runs WP-CLI commands against a WordPress site's local Docker container or remote production environment. It distinguishes from sibling tools (wp_copy_post, wp_copy_post_meta) which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use (run WP-CLI commands), how to configure via wp-cli.conf, how to pass args without leading 'wp', and handling multiple sites. Does not explicitly mention alternatives, but siblings are fundamentally different.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses the behavioral traits: the detection vs. write phases, refusal to overwrite without flag, and environmental probing. It does not contradict any 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 well-structured and front-loaded with key info. It is comprehensive but not overly verbose, though it could be slightly more concise in detailing the phases.
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?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema or annotations), the description provides complete guidance on the two-phase workflow, parameter dependencies, and safety guards.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant context beyond the schema, especially for the nested 'site' object (field constraints and conditions like local-only vs. production).
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?
The description uses specific verbs ('Create', 'Call it FIRST') and clearly identifies the resource (configuration file for a WordPress project). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'wp_cli' or 'wp_create_post' by focusing on initialization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('Call it FIRST when no config exists') and describes the two-phase process. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses many behavioral details: parsing uses WordPress core functions via PHP eval, not string surgery; content is handled via base64; guard mechanisms for production; preview mode; verified=true on round-trip; transport resolved from config. No contradictions with annotations (none present).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is thorough but verbose, spanning multiple paragraphs. It is front-loaded with the purpose and logically structured, but contains many details that could be streamlined for conciseness. An agent may need to parse through substantial text.
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?
Given the complexity (12 parameters, 2 required) and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: all operations, selectors, block formats, safety mechanisms (preview, confirm), transport, and return value descriptions. The agent has sufficient information to use the tool correctly.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some operational context (e.g., block arg formats, selector syntax) but much of this is already present in the schema descriptions. The additional value is more about tool behavior than parameter semantics specifically.
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?
The description clearly states that the tool performs surgical operations on a single Gutenberg/ACF block of a post. It specifies the verb ('surgically operate') and the resource ('ONE Gutenberg/ACF block of a single post'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wp_sync_post by emphasizing block-level granularity and avoiding string surgery.
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?
The description explicitly tells when to use this tool: for block-level operations like insert, replace, read, update-attrs, remove, or move. It advises using it INSTEAD of hand-written str_replace/eval surgery, citing corruption issues. It contrasts with the whole-body wp_sync_post, providing clear alternatives and exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses base64 encoding, md5 verification, production guard requirement, and that content never passes through caller's text. Could mention the exact return value (new_id) more explicitly but implied.
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?
Description is relatively long but every sentence serves a purpose, front-loading the main action. Slightly lengthy due to comprehensive details, but still efficient for the complexity.
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?
Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context: content options, production guard, return value, and compositional workflow. No gaps identified.
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 coverage is 100%, yet description adds critical context: mutual exclusivity of content/blocks, server-side serialization of blocks, base64 handling, and workflow with wp_block. Significantly enriches parameter understanding.
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?
The description clearly states the tool creates a new post from scratch, distinguishes from sibling tool wp_clone_post (which copies existing posts), and specifies how content is supplied (content vs blocks).
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 states when to use this tool versus wp_clone_post, mentions required confirm=true for production guard, and gives guidance on mutually exclusive content parameters and composition with wp_block.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses mandatory md5 verification, delete-then-add strategy, PHP serialize/base64 round-trip, automatic URL resolution for multisite, transport resolution, production guard, and that content never passes through caller's text.
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-loaded with key purpose and behavior; however, the description is lengthy due to complexity. Nearly every sentence adds value, but some redundancy exists (e.g., md5 mentioned twice).
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?
Covers input behavior comprehensively but lacks explicit description of return values/output beyond mentioning verified=false. No output schema exists, so description should detail full response format.
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?
Adds meaning beyond the 100% schema coverage by explaining mutual exclusivity of option_names and like, ACF repeater behavior, confirm purpose, and subdomain/URL resolution details.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'SYNC', the resource 'wp_options rows', and distinguishes it from siblings like wp_sync_post_meta by explaining that this tool handles settings that post tools cannot reach.
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 advises when to use this tool vs alternatives (for options not reachable by post tools), explains two selection methods, warns about ACF repeater copying needing both prefixes, and notes when confirm is required for production.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
In the absence of annotations, the description fully details the tool's behavior: it reads post fields and all meta, creates a new post via wp_insert_post, writes meta verbatim, verifies with content md5 and meta digest, reports ID references for manual remapping, and notes that content/meta never pass through the caller's text. It also mentions the production guard requiring confirm. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).
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 paragraph of about 200 words. It is front-loaded with the key action and differentiated use case, but could benefit from bullet points or clearer separation of behavioral details. Still, every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested overrides object, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the full process, edge cases (ID references, verification, production guard), and explicitly mentions the returned new_id. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit output schema, but the description mentions the returned key new_id.
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?
All 8 parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds useful context: explains the new_id is assigned by destination, provides an overrides example, clarifies confirm requirement for production, and mentions Terminus environment overrides. This adds value beyond the schema descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states 'COPY a source post to another environment as a NEW post' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool wp_sync_post by specifying when to use it (post does not exist on destination) and provides a concrete example (pushing a locally-authored alert/notification up to a Pantheon multidev).
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?
The description explicitly contrasts with wp_sync_post: 'Use this (NOT wp_sync_post) when the post does not exist on the destination yet'. It also provides contextual guidance like pushing to a Pantheon multidev and requiring confirm=true on production with PROD_GUARD enabled.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: mandatory md5 round-trip verification, content never passing through caller's text, transport resolved via wp-cli.conf, production guard requiring confirm, and block filtering behavior (only_blocks/except_blocks). This gives agents complete understanding of side effects and constraints.
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 relatively long but well-structured, with core purpose first followed by details. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy (e.g., repeating post_id conditions) could be trimmed. Overall, it is concise enough for the complexity.
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?
Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter semantics, verification, error handling (fails if destination missing), transport resolution, and production guard. It provides sufficient context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning beyond schema descriptions, such as explaining the splicing behavior for block filters and the overall verification process. However, each parameter's schema description is already clear, so the extra value is moderate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool syncs a single post's post_content between environments with md5 verification. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like wp_clone_post (for creating new posts) and wp_block (for per-block edits), making its unique purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use (e.g., pushing block markup between environments) and when not to (if destination post doesn't exist, use wp_clone_post instead). It also mentions alternatives like wp_block for per-block edits and notes that confirm=true is required for production sites with PROD_GUARD enabled.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses critical behavioral details: mandatory checksum round-trip verification, preservation of serialized data, verbatim write with no re-interpretation, re-reads destination for comparison, content not passing through caller's text, and transport resolution matching wp_cli. No annotations provided, so full burden is met.
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?
Description is in a single paragraph but front-loads the core action and is concise given the complexity. Every sentence adds value, though some structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability. Still well within acceptable length.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: verification process, transport, production guard, default mirroring, and parameter effects. No critical gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.
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?
Schema has 100% parameter description coverage, but the tool description adds significant context beyond the schema: explains the mirroring behavior of the 'keys' parameter, the role of 'confirm' with production guard, and the override purpose of 'from_env'/'to_env'. Goes beyond baseline 3.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'SYNC' and resource 'post meta' with the specific action of transferring complete meta between environments with checksum verification. Distinguishes from sibling tool 'wp_clone_post' by explicitly noting it updates an existing post rather than creating one.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use: updates existing post, does not create (references wp_clone_post for creation). Explains default full mirror behavior and the effect of the 'keys' parameter. Mentions production guard requiring 'confirm=true'. Offers clear alternatives.
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:

[![mcp-wp-cli-terminus MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/EarthmanWeb/mcp-wp-cli-terminus/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/EarthmanWeb/mcp-wp-cli-terminus)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-wp-cli-terminus MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/EarthmanWeb/mcp-wp-cli-terminus/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/EarthmanWeb/mcp-wp-cli-terminus)

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/EarthmanWeb/mcp-wp-cli-terminus'

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