Retrieve all available WordPress categories from a connected site, enabling content organization and post categorization.
Get available WordPress categories
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": "get-wp-categories"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get' which implies a read operation, but it does not mention any caveats like whether it requires authentication, how results are sorted, if empty categories are included, or what the response structure looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and no behavioral context, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain what data is returned (e.g., IDs, names, counts), whether categories are hierarchical, or any prerequisites such as WordPress authentication. For a simple getter, it is minimally adequate but far from complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. Since there are no parameters to describe, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly avoids fabricating parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves available WordPress categories. The verb 'Get' and resource 'categories' are specific, though 'available' is slightly ambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list-taxonomies, but no other tool directly fetches categories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list-taxonomies or assign-categories-to-posts. The intended context is implied (when needing category data), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.