AutoWP MCP Server

list-user-roles

List available WordPress user roles and their capabilities to inspect permission structures and support user administration tasks.

Instructions

View available WordPress user roles and their capabilities

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-user-roles"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`includeCapabilities`	No	Include detailed capability information for each role

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The word 'View' clearly indicates a read-only operation, which is useful since no annotations are provided. However, the description says the tool returns 'their capabilities', but the includeCapabilities parameter defaults to false, meaning capabilities are not returned by default. This behavioral nuance is undisclosed, and without annotations the description carries the full transparency burden.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the purpose clearly without any fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 one-param list tool, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain that capabilities are excluded by default, nor does it describe the return format. Since there is no output schema, more detail about the response structure would improve completeness.

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 schema already fully describes the includeCapabilities parameter (name, type, default, and description), so the tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb 'View' and a clear resource 'WordPress user roles' with 'capabilities', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-users (lists user accounts) and set-user-role (assigns roles). It precisely states what the tool does.

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?

Usage is implied: you use this to view available roles. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. The description does not state that this is the tool to call when you need a role directory, not user assignments or role modifications.

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