Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

WordPress: Wp widget get

wordpress_specialist_wp_widget_get
Read-only

Retrieve a WordPress widget area's contents, including block widgets with parsed and raw HTML or legacy widget settings, to inspect and round-trip widget data.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Read one widget area's contents. Returns {area_id, kind, widgets: [...]}. For block kind, each widget is {id, type:'block', blocks:[...parsed], raw:'<!-- wp:... -->'} — raw is the round-trippable HTML; blocks is the parsed tree for inspection. For legacy kind, each widget is {id, type, settings:{...}} keyed by the widget's option store. 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>",
      "area_id": "<area_id>"
    },
    "name": "wordpress_specialist_wp_widget_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
area_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the exact return shape for both "block" and "legacy" kinds, the meaning of raw versus blocks (round-trippable HTML vs parsed tree for inspection), and the bridge version plus manage_options capability requirement.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by dense but necessary return-shape detail and the prerequisite. The styled type notation is compact and every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so well for both widget kinds, including the raw/parsed distinction. The remaining gap is the unexplained site parameter and no statement about behavior when the area does not exist.

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% with two required parameters. The description only indirectly explains area_id (by saying it reads one widget area and returns area_id in the payload), and it never explains what the "site" parameter is, what form an area ID takes, or how to discover valid IDs.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Read one widget area's contents," which clearly separates it from the mutating sibling wordpress_specialist_wp_widget_set. It does not explicitly name a sibling or explain how it differs from wordpress_specialist_wp_widget_areas_list, 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 Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the description: use it to inspect a single widget area, with the prerequisite "Requires Airano MCP Bridge v2.17.0+ and manage_options" stated. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the areas list tool or the blocks tool, and no exclusions or error conditions are given.

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