AutoWP MCP Server

get-post

Retrieve WordPress post content and metadata, with the option to include revision history for version tracking.

Instructions

Retrieve WordPress post details and revisions

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": {
      "postId": "<postId>"
    },
    "name": "get-post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`postId`	Yes	ID of the post to retrieve
`includeRevisions`	No	Include post revision history

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It omits authentication needs, error behavior, response format, and whether revisions are included by default. The phrase 'and revisions' conflicts with the schema's 'includeRevisions' default of false, creating ambiguity about default behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, achieving efficiency. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it lacks some useful context that would make it more valuable.

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?

For a simple read operation, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It does not mention return values (no output schema to rely on), authentication prerequisites, or how to interpret revisions, leaving some gaps in what an agent needs to know.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides; mentioning 'revisions' merely echoes the existing 'includeRevisions' parameter.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' with the resource 'WordPress post details and revisions', clearly distinguishing it from write/delete/list operations among siblings. It unambiguously identifies this as a single-post read tool.

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 usage for retrieving post data, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like list-posts, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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