wordpress_get_mediaRetrieve a paginated list of media items from the WordPress media library. Use perPage and page parameters to control the number of results.
Get media library files with filtering by type
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| perPage | Yes | ||
| page | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states 'Get media library files' and fails to disclose pagination semantics, return format, or the fact that 'filtering by type' is not actually supported by the schema. This leaves the agent guessing about the tool's behavior.
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 that is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it omits necessary details, but conciseness itself is good—no fluff or redundant content.
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?
The tool is a simple paginated list operation, yet the description fails to mention that page/perPage control pagination or what the response looks like. The misleading 'filtering by type' further detracts from completeness. Without annotations or an output schema, the description is insufficient for safe invocation.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain 'page' or 'perPage' at all. Worse, it introduces a 'type' filter that does not exist in the schema, which could confuse the agent into supplying an invalid parameter. The description adds no value to parameter understanding.
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 identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('media library files'), but 'with filtering by type' is misleading because the input schema only contains 'page' and 'perPage' with no 'type' parameter. It also does not distinguish this from sibling tools like wordpress_get_unused_media or wordpress_get_media_analytics.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention pagination usage, common scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selecting this over other media-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.