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

wp-ssh-mcp

by MSSOFTPC
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

site_info

site_info
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve essential WordPress site details—name, label, URL, and WordPress, theme, and WooCommerce versions—to verify setup and inform further diagnostics.

Instructions

Site name, label, URL, WordPress / theme / WooCommerce versions. Good first call.

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": "site_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about returned fields and recommended sequencing, but it does not explain auth needs, rate limits, or the open-world/remote nature of the call.

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 two short sentences with no waste. It front-loads the returned metadata and then gives the recommended usage hint.

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 zero-parameter, read-only metadata tool with no output schema, the description lists the key return fields and indicates it is a starting point. It could be slightly more complete by describing the exact return shape, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 for a 0-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 names the specific metadata returned: site name, label, URL, and WordPress/theme/WooCommerce versions. It is clear what resource is involved, though it is phrased as a noun list rather than a verb and does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like wpssh_sites or diagnostics.

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?

"Good first call" gives a clear usage context: start here when orienting to a site. It does not provide exclusions or name alternatives, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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