elementor-mcp-agent

export_elementor_template

Read-onlyIdempotent

Exports Elementor templates (sections, pages, headers, footers) as portable JSON objects for reuse across sites via import_elementor_template.

Instructions

Export an Elementor template (section, page, header, footer, etc.) as a portable JSON object. Output goes into import_elementor_template on another site.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "template_id": "<template_id>"
    },
    "name": "export_elementor_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_id`	No
`template_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`template_id`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`type`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`portable_json`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description builds on these by specifying the output is a portable JSON object and intended for import. No contradictions; adds context about the tool's behavior beyond annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with 2 parameters and an output schema. The description adequately covers purpose and output use case, but fails to describe parameters. Given the output schema exists, completeness is moderate but missing parameter guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter (site_id, template_id) or their roles. This is a major gap; the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb (export), the resource (Elementor template), and the output format (portable JSON object). It also explicitly ties the output to the sibling tool import_elementor_template, distinguishing its purpose.

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?

The description gives clear context: use when exporting an Elementor template for reuse on another site, with output directed to import_elementor_template. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond the import tool, but provides sufficient guidance.

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