wordpress_get_taxonomyRetrieve details of a specific WordPress taxonomy, including its name, slug, description, and associated post types.
Get details for a specific taxonomy
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taxonomy | 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, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It merely says 'Get details,' implying a read operation, but fails to describe what details are returned, potential error conditions, or any other behavioral context. This adds little beyond the tool name.
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, short sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently complete, so it doesn't earn a higher score for structural quality.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description still leaves major gaps. It doesn't clarify what 'details' are returned or how to format the taxonomy parameter. This is incomplete for a tool that carries no other structured context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't compensate. The single 'taxonomy' parameter is left completely unexplained—the description doesn't specify whether it expects a slug, ID, or name. This is a critical gap for a one-parameter tool.
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 it retrieves details for a specific taxonomy, using the verb 'Get' and the resource 'details for a specific taxonomy.' The word 'specific' distinguishes it from the plural sibling wordpress_get_taxonomies, though it doesn't explicitly name that alternative.
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 instead of alternatives like wordpress_get_taxonomies or wordpress_get_terms. There's no mention of prerequisites such as needing a taxonomy slug or ID, nor any indication of when this tool is the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.