elementor-mcp-agent

list_elementor_pages

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all Elementor-built pages on a WordPress site. Returns page ID, title, slug, status, and last modified date.

Instructions

List pages built with Elementor (have _elementor_edit_mode = 'builder'). Returns id, title, slug, status, modified date.

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": "list_elementor_pages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_id`	No
`per_page`	No
`search`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`total`	Yes
`pages`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds context by specifying the filtering condition and the exact return fields (id, title, slug, status, modified date), which are helpful beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the essential purpose and filter, then lists return fields with zero wasted words. Every part earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no required), the description covers the return type and filtering logic. It lacks guidance on how site_id is used (though likely required by context), but annotations and output schema (not shown) supplement this. Overall adequate for a listing tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

None of the three parameters (site_id, per_page, search) are described in the description. With schema coverage at 0%, the description fails to explain parameter usage, meaning, or constraints beyond what the schema provides (e.g., per_page default).

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'pages built with Elementor', adding a specific filtering criterion (_elementor_edit_mode = 'builder'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_elementor_templates or list_widgets_in_page by focusing on pages with Elementor data.

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 explains the scope (Elementor pages via a specific meta key), giving implicit guidance on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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