Skip to main content
Glama

WordPress: Get menu

wordpress_get_menu
Read-only

Fetches a specific WordPress menu with all items and their hierarchical structure, helping you inspect menu content and relationships accurately.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Get detailed information about a specific menu including all items. Returns menu details with hierarchical structure of menu items.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "menu_id": "<menu_id>"
    },
    "name": "wordpress_get_menu"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
menu_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.13.1
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful return-shape detail ('hierarchical structure of menu items'), but says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid menu_id, permissions required, or whether the hierarchy depth is limited.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Short and front-loaded, but the second sentence largely restates the first ('all items' vs 'hierarchical structure of menu items'), so half the text adds no new information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and a bare readOnly annotation, the definition should do more: it omits identifier formats for both required params and the error behavior for unknown menu IDs. For a two-required-param lookup tool this leaves real gaps.

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% and neither of the two params is described in the text. The description never explains what 'site' expects (slug, URL, ID) or how menu_id is obtained, so an agent must guess the identifier formats.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific menu') and clarifies scope by noting it includes all items in hierarchical structure. It does not differentiate from the near-identical sibling wordpress_specialist_wp_menu_get, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as wordpress_specialist_wp_menu_get or wordpress_list_menu_items, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid menu_id from a list call). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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