Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

WordPress: Media upload workflow status

wordpress_media_upload_workflow_status
Read-only

Check whether AI image generation is enabled for a WordPress site and get recommended fallback upload paths for public URLs, small attachments, and larger local files.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Report WordPress media workflow capabilities for general agents. Shows whether AI image generation is enabled or disabled_missing_provider_key, and lists the recommended fallback path for public URLs, small attachments, and larger agent-local/chat-attached files.

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>"
    },
    "name": "wordpress_media_upload_workflow_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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 genuinely new context — the two capability states and the enumerated fallback categories — but says nothing about the shape of the report, whether results are cached, or what the disabled_missing_provider_key state implies for the caller's next step.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the tool's role and then enumerates what is reported. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix and the compressed phrase 'disabled_missing_provider_key' cost some readability, but there is no filler.

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?

For a read-only, single-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description should describe the returned report more concretely and define the site parameter. It covers the capability states and fallback categories but leaves the output structure and parameter meaning underspecified.

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?

The single required parameter 'site' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — no indication whether it is a slug, ID, URL, or key. With full reliance on the description to compensate for an undocumented required parameter, this is a clear gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource — reporting WordPress media workflow capabilities — and names the concrete state it surfaces (AI image generation enabled vs. disabled_missing_provider_key) plus the fallback paths it lists. It does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings such as wordpress_probe_upload_limits or wordpress_upload_media_chunked_status, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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: an agent can deduce it should query this to decide between public-URL uploads, small attachments, and chunked uploads, but the text never says 'call this before uploading' or names the sibling tools for each fallback path. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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