Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

WordPress: Wp widget areas list

wordpress_specialist_wp_widget_areas_list
Read-only

Lists all registered WordPress sidebar and widget areas with ID, name, theme location, widget count, and block or legacy type to help audit widget zones before making changes.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] List every registered sidebar / widget area with id, name, theme_location, widget_count, and kind (block or legacy). Block areas store widgets as block instances; legacy areas use per-widget option keys. Requires Airano MCP Bridge v2.17.0+ and manage_options.

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_specialist_wp_widget_areas_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing two hard preconditions (Airano MCP Bridge v2.17.0+ and manage_options) and explaining the underlying storage model difference between block areas (block instances) and legacy areas (per-widget option keys). It does not discuss output ordering or size limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the returned field list before the caveats, and each sentence carries real information. The "[UNIFIED]" tag and backtick-heavy notation add minor noise without adding meaning.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return field set, the two area kinds with their storage implications, and the version/permission prerequisites. The only remaining ambiguity, the meaning of "site", is a schema problem more than a description gap, but it is the one thing an agent could still trip on — a 5 is defensible given how little else is missing.

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 the single required parameter "site" is never mentioned in the description, so an agent gets no help on what identifier format is expected (ID, slug, URL, multisite key). With low coverage the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ("List every registered sidebar / widget area") and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, theme_location, widget_count, kind), plus it explicitly separates block vs legacy area semantics. This clearly distinguishes it from the mutating siblings wp_widget_get and wp_widget_set.

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: a discovery/list tool is naturally the first step before wp_widget_get or wp_widget_set, and the block-vs-legacy note hints at which follow-up tool applies to which kind. There is no explicit "use this when / don't use this when" statement or named alternative.

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