AutoWP MCP Server

test-wp-connection

Test WordPress site reachability to verify it's online and accessible before automating content publishing or maintenance tasks.

Instructions

Test if a WordPress site is reachable

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": {
      "siteUrl": "<siteUrl>"
    },
    "name": "test-wp-connection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`siteUrl`	Yes	WordPress site URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavior disclosure. It only states the tool's purpose and does not explain whether the operation is read-only, what network call is made, what constitutes 'reachable', or what happens on success/failure. Significant behavioral details are missing.

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, clear sentence with no superfluous words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), but the description still omits return behavior and side effects. An agent cannot know what the tool returns or how 'reachability' is indicated. It is minimally adequate for invocation but incomplete for interpreting results.

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 has 100% coverage with a description for the single parameter ('WordPress site URL'). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('test') and resource ('WordPress site') with a clear scope ('reachable'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle content, authentication, and media operations.

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 as a connectivity check but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It gives no context about when this should be invoked relative to other tools, such as before authentication or content operations.

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