Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

WordPress: Get page

wordpress_get_page
Read-only

Retrieve a specific WordPress page by ID to access its content, metadata, and author details for editing, auditing, or display.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Get a specific WordPress page by ID. Returns complete page data including content, metadata, and author information.

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>",
      "page_id": "<page_id>"
    },
    "name": "wordpress_get_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
fieldsNo
page_idYes
meta_keysNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description only needs to add context. It does add a return-value summary (content, metadata, author) that stands in for the missing output schema, but says nothing about permissions, failure modes on invalid IDs, or what 'complete page data' excludes.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and identifier. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is noise but does not obscure meaning.

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 and 0% parameter documentation, the definition should clarify the purpose of fields and meta_keys and the shape of the returned page object. As written, an agent cannot construct a fully informed call beyond the required site and page_id.

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 carries the full burden, yet it explains only page_id. The 'fields' and 'meta_keys' parameters, which likely control output shaping, are never mentioned and an agent would have to guess their format and purpose.

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 and resource ('Get a specific WordPress page by ID') and names what comes back. It does not distinguish this from the closely named sibling wordpress_get_post, so an agent must infer that 'page' means a WordPress page post type rather than any post.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by ID' signals that a page identifier is required, but there is no statement of when to choose this over wordpress_get_post or the create/update/delete_page siblings, and no prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned.

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