wp-ssh-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List configured sites

wpssh_sites

Read-only

Lists reachable WordPress sites and displays the current read-only safety mode, letting you confirm available sites before running management tasks without exposing keys.

Instructions

List the WordPress sites this server can reach and the current safety mode ("read"). Never shows keys.

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_sites"
  }
}

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, it discloses two useful behavioral facts: the response includes the current safety mode, and secrets/keys are never exposed. That is genuine additive context for a security-sensitive listing tool, though it stops short of describing what each site entry contains or behavior when no sites are configured.

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, front-loaded with what is listed and followed by the security assurance. No filler, nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 listing tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers what comes back (sites plus safety mode) and what does not (keys). Only minor gaps remain, such as the fields identifying each site.

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; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies with no semantic gap to fill.

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: lists the WordPress sites reachable by this server, plus the current safety mode. The purpose is unambiguous, though it does not differentiate itself from the similarly-scoped site_info sibling.

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?

The phrase 'the WordPress sites this server can reach' implies this is a discovery step before using per-site tools, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. site_info) is given. Usage must be inferred from the purpose statement.

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