wordpress_get_menu_locationsRetrieve all registered menu locations from the active theme. Use this to identify where navigation menus can be assigned.
Get all registered menu locations in the active theme
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action (get all) and scope (active theme), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose return format, potential errors, or side effects (though none expected). For a simple getter, this is adequate but minimal.
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 of eight words that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No wasted words or redundant information.
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 simple and the description covers its core function and scope. Given no output schema, it could mention return format, but for a getter of menu locations, the description is sufficiently complete. Adding usage hints would improve it slightly.
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, so the description has nothing to add regarding input. The schema is empty and description coverage is 100%, matching the baseline of 4 for parameter-free tools.
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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the exact resource 'menu locations' with scope 'in the active theme'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wordpress_get_menus (which gets menus themselves) and wordpress_assign_menu_to_location (which assigns).
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are stated. The usage is implied by the name and description; for example, it's the natural tool to query available menu locations before assigning a menu. However, there is no direct comparison to siblings or exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.