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

wp-ssh-mcp

by MSSOFTPC
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

post_list

post_list
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists WordPress posts, pages, or custom post types with filters for type, status, search term, and result limit.

Instructions

List posts/pages/custom post types.

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": "post_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax items
searchNoSearch term
post_typeNoe.g. post, page, product
post_statusNoe.g. publish, draft, any

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of default page size, ordering, pagination, or that an unfiltered call may return the entire post table on a large 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?

A single short sentence with zero padding, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves the gaps that hurt other dimensions.

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?

With full schema coverage and a complete read-only annotation set, the bare bones an agent needs to construct a call are present. Still missing is any hint about default limit behavior or result volume on a large WordPress site, which matters for an open-world list tool.

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 all four parameters (limit, search, post_type, post_status) are documented inline with examples. The description adds no syntax or behavioral detail (e.g. how search matches, whether limit has a default), so the 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('posts/pages/custom post types'), which tells an agent exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling post_get or explain how the three resource types relate, but the list semantics are unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus post_get, term_list, media_list, or the other list tools. No preconditions, no defaults, no note about whether an unfiltered call returns everything.

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