Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wp-ssh-mcp

wp-ssh-mcp

by MSSOFTPC
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

file_list

file_list
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists files and directories under a specified path inside wp-content for a self-hosted WordPress site, helping you inspect plugin, theme, and upload contents without SSH access.

Instructions

List a directory inside wp-content.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "file_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoPath relative to wp-content

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds the real constraint that the path is confined to wp-content, but says nothing about recursion depth, hidden-file inclusion, or behavior on a missing/invalid directory.

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?

One short sentence with the scope constraint front and centre; nothing wasted, nothing buried.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the essentials are present. Only edge-case behavior (missing directory, recursion, return ordering) is absent, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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% and the single 'path' parameter is documented as 'Path relative to wp-content'. The description repeats that scope but adds no syntax guidance (leading slash, '.' for root, traversal rules), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List a directory' with a clearly stated sandbox boundary ('inside wp-content'). It does not distinguish itself from the closest sibling, file_read, so an agent must still infer which one to reach for.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the obvious alternative (file_read) or of how this differs from media_list. Usage is only implied by the name and the wp-content scope.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools