wp-ssh-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Ping site

wpssh_ping

Read-only

Verifies the WP SSH plugin is installed and reachable without a key, returning plugin name, version, site, and label for connectivity checks.

Instructions

Check that the WP SSH plugin is installed and reachable (no key needed). Returns plugin, version, site, label.

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": "wpssh_ping"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond them: no key/credential is required, which tells the agent this is safe to call before authentication is configured. It also enumerates the returned fields (plugin, version, site, label), useful since no output schema exists. It stops short of explaining failure behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste, and the core purpose plus the no-key constraint is front-loaded ahead of the return-value note. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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-param, read-only probe with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description gives purpose, auth requirement, and return fields. The one meaningful omission is what an unreachable or missing-plugin result looks like (error versus a negative result), which matters for a ping-style 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level gaps exist.

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 and resource: check that the WP SSH plugin is installed and reachable. The parenthetical '(no key needed)' further narrows what kind of check this is. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like wpssh_sites or health_check_status, so an agent must infer the distinction, but the phrasing is specific enough to route on.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'no key needed' implies this is the cheap pre-flight call before keyed wpssh_* operations, but that is inferred rather than stated. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as wpssh_sites or diagnostics is given.

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