AutoWP MCP Server

get-author-username

Retrieve the username of a WordPress author by providing their author ID. Map numeric author IDs to usernames for user administration and content management tasks.

Instructions

Get the username of a WordPress author by their ID

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": {
      "authorId": "<authorId>"
    },
    "name": "get-author-username"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`authorId`	Yes	The ID of the author

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action without mentioning what happens if the author is not found, any authentication requirements, or the exact format of the returned username. For a read operation, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It contains no fluff or redundant information, earning high marks for efficiency and front-loading.

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?

With no output schema, the description should at least clarify return value and edge cases. It does state the tool returns a username, but it omits error handling behavior, assumptions about valid IDs, or any relationship to authentication tools in the sibling list. For a simple one-parameter tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% coverage with 'authorId' described as 'The ID of the author'. The description repeats this, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description does not compensate or add extra context.

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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly states the resource ('username of a WordPress author') and input ('by their ID'). It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list-users or get-post, as there is no direct competing tool for this exact lookup.

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 when to use the tool (when you have an author ID and need the username) but provides no explicit context, exclusions, or mention of prerequisites such as authentication. No alternatives are referenced, so guidance beyond the obvious is absent.

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