AutoWP MCP Server

list-users

Get a filtered list of WordPress users by role, search term, or registration date. Control pagination and sorting to locate accounts.

Instructions

List WordPress users with filtering options

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-users"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No	Page number (default: 1)
`role`	No	Filter by user role (e.g., 'administrator', 'editor', 'author')
`order`	No	Sort order	desc
`search`	No	Search users by name or email
`orderBy`	No	Order users by	registered_date
`perPage`	No	Users per page (max: 100)
`registeredAfter`	No	Filter users registered after this date (ISO format)
`registeredBefore`	No	Filter users registered before this date (ISO format)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits itself. It only says 'List' (implying read-only) but does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, default limits, or any authentication/authorization requirements. This is a significant transparency gap for a user-facing listing tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and clear, though it is also quite terse; a bit more explanatory content could have improved usability without becoming bloated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, default behaviors, date format expectations, or any caveats. The tool's basic purpose is clear, but the agent would lack critical context for successful invocation and result interpretation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 8 parameters already have clear descriptions. The phrase 'with filtering options' adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the schema itself carries the burden successfully.

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 ('List') and resource ('WordPress users') with 'filtering options' to indicate scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list-user-roles, though it does not explicitly mention any unique scope or edge cases.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list-user-roles or other user-related tools. There is no mention of recommended scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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