wp_el_widgetsLists all registered Elementor widget types with titles and categories, so you can verify available widgets before building a page and avoid referencing non-existent ones.
Enumerate every registered widget name (widgetType) with its title and category. Call this before building a page so you only reference widgets that actually exist on this site.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the return shape (widgetType, title, category) and the fact that results reflect what is registered on this specific site.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The what (enumerate widget names with title/category) comes first and the when/why follows, so it is well front-loaded.
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 zero-parameter, read-only enumeration with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and call timing. It omits any note on result size or ordering, which is a minor gap for a registry listing.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's mention of widgetType is a return-field clarification rather than parameter guidance, which is appropriate here.
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?
States a specific verb (Enumerate) and resource (every registered widget name / widgetType) plus the fields returned (title, category). This is clearly distinct from siblings like wp_el_build or wp_el_get, which operate on pages rather than the widget registry.
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?
Explicitly says when to call it ('before building a page') and why (so you only reference widgets that actually exist on this site), which implicitly routes the agent away from guessing widget types in wp_el_build. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.