Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
WPZylos MCP Server

WPZylos MCP Server

Official
by WPDiggerStudio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

inspect_hook_map

Map every hook registered by a WPZylos plugin, showing each add_action, add_filter, wpAction, wpFilter, action, and filter call with callback, file, and line. Essential for debugging hook issues.

Instructions

Map ALL hooks registered by a WPZylos plugin. Returns every add_action, add_filter, wpAction, wpFilter, action, filter call with callback, file, and line. Critical for debugging hook issues.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_hook_map"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute path to the plugin root

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It describes what the tool returns and that it maps all hooks, but does not disclose potential side effects, performance implications, or permissions needed. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with main action ('Map ALL hooks'), followed by return details and purpose. No redundant information, every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, description adequately explains input (path) and output fields (callback, file, line). Could benefit from an example but is sufficiently complete for most use cases.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single 'path' parameter described in schema. Description does not add meaning beyond the schema's 'Absolute path to the plugin root'. Baseline of 3 applies as schema already documents parameter.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Map' and resource 'ALL hooks registered by a WPZylos plugin', and specifies return fields (callback, file, line). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'validate_hook_usage' by focusing on complete mapping for debugging.

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?

States 'Critical for debugging hook issues' which implies usage context, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives like 'validate_hook_usage' or 'inspect_conventions'. Guidance is implied but not explicit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools