Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Woodpresser

Woodpresser

by a-saeedia
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get a post or page

wp_content_get
Read-only

Retrieve a WordPress post or page by ID or slug to get raw and rendered content and Open Graph fields for display, editing, or metadata workflows.

Instructions

Fetch a single item by ID or slug, including raw and rendered content plus open Graph-ish fields.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "wp_content_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
slugNo
typeNopost
contextNoedit

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint) and scope (openWorldHint). The description adds useful context about the return payload ('raw and rendered content plus open Graph-ish fields'), which matters since there is no output schema. It still omits that context=edit vs view changes what content is returned, a behavioral detail an agent would want.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description does well to name the returned content fields, but it leaves the context parameter and key-precedence behavior unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 4-parameter tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It addresses id/slug ('by ID or slug') and implicitly the type enum ('post or page'), but says nothing about the context enum (view vs edit), which governs whether raw or rendered content comes back. Three of four parameters get partial coverage and the most consequential one is silent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('single item'/post or page) with the lookup keys (ID or slug). It clearly reads as the single-item counterpart to wp_content_list, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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?

The single-vs-list framing implicitly tells the agent when to reach for this tool rather than wp_content_list. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of required permissions, and no note on which lookup key takes precedence if both id and slug are supplied.

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