Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wpxmcp

wpxmcp

by alokemajumder
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Read the audit log

get_audit_log
Read-only

Retrieve recent audit log entries to see exactly what actions were taken on WordPress sites, including writes, deletes, SQL, WP-CLI, and theme publishes, with timestamps and outcomes.

Instructions

Read the append-only local audit log of every sensitive action this server has taken — writes, deletes, SQL, WP-CLI, theme publishes — with timestamp, site, tool, target and outcome. Useful for answering "what did the AI actually change?".

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_audit_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many of the most recent entries to return.
site_idNoWhich configured WordPress site to act on. Optional — with a single site configured it is used automatically; with several, the default site is used unless you name one. Run list_sites for valid ids.
all_sitesNoInclude entries for every site rather than just one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context: the log is append-only and local, and specifies which actions are recorded, going beyond what annotations convey. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the resource, scope, and output fields; the second adds a practical use case without repeating schema or annotation information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's explicit listing of returned fields (timestamp, site, tool, target, outcome) is essential and sufficient. The append-only nature, scope, and invocation parameters are all covered between description and schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter definitions for limit, site_id, and all_sites, including defaults and bounds. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but the schema already carries that burden adequately.

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: reading the append-only local audit log, and enumerates what events it covers (writes, deletes, SQL, WP-CLI, theme publishes) plus the fields returned. This clearly differentiates it from sibling audit/content-specific tools like audit_content or security_audit.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives a clear use case: answering 'what did the AI actually change?' and frames the tool as a server-wide sensitive-action log. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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