wordpress_get_site_infoRetrieve complete WordPress site information, including available API routes, to understand site configuration and capabilities.
Get complete WordPress site information including available API routes
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, or what 'complete site information' includes. This is a significant gap for a tool that could touch sensitive data.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action and a key detail (API routes), but could arguably be slightly more specific about what 'complete site info' entails. Overall, it is appropriately sized.
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?
For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description gives a general sense of what is returned ('complete site information') and highlights one specific element ('API routes'). However, it lacks detail on the exact shape of the response or common use cases, which would help an agent set expectations. It is minimally viable but not thorough.
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, and the schema is empty, so parameter details are not needed. The description adequately conveys the tool's purpose without needing to explain input semantics. The 0-param baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds no confusion.
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 states the tool gets complete WordPress site information including available API routes, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('WordPress site information'). While it could better distinguish itself from sibling tools like wordpress_get_system_info or wordpress_get_settings, the mention of 'API routes' narrows its scope meaningfully.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says what it does, without any exclusions or pointers to sibling tools like wordpress_get_system_info or wordpress_get_version_info for more targeted queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.