elementor-mcp-agent

site_health

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a comprehensive site health snapshot: WP, PHP, Elementor versions, disk space, plugins, and theme info aggregated from multiple REST calls.

Instructions

Comprehensive site health snapshot: WP/PHP/Elementor versions, disk space (if SSH), plugin count, theme info. Aggregates multiple REST calls into a single overview.

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_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_id`	Yes
`url`	Yes
`wp_version`	No
`php_version`	No
`elementor_version`	No
`elementor_pro_version`	No
`active_theme`	No
`plugins_total`	No
`plugins_active`	No
`plugins_outdated`	No
`elementor_pages_count`	No
`errors`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world. The description adds that it aggregates multiple REST calls (useful context) and that disk space is conditional on SSH. It does not contradict 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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the core value proposition. No redundant words or fluff.

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 that it has an output schema (so return values are covered), the description lists key output items. It does not mention the optional parameter or its role, but for a simple tool with one param, it covers the essentials.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'site_id' parameter at all. It only describes the output, not the input meaning or usage.

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 it provides a comprehensive site health snapshot including specific items like WP/PHP/Elementor versions, disk space, plugin count, theme info. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_elementor_versions or ping_site by being an aggregated overview.

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 description implies use for a broad overview but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others like check_elementor_versions or preflight_check. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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