Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wpxmcp

wpxmcp

by alokemajumder
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List content revisions

list_revisions
Read-only

View the revision history of any content item to see what changed and when, and restore an earlier version if a recent edit introduced problems.

Instructions

List the stored revisions of a piece of content, so you can see what changed and when — and recover a previous version if an edit went wrong.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "list_revisions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesContent ID.
typeNoContent type of that ID.post
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.
per_pageNoHow many revisions to return, newest first.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 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
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / minimum
      Added value: +-9007199254740991
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint:true and destructiveHint:false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds use-case context but no extra behavioral detail such as pagination, ordering, or a clear statement that listing alone does not restore content. The 'recover' wording is a mild risk but not an annotation contradiction.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action comes first, followed by the intended value, making it easy to scan and parse.

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?

The tool is simple and the annotations cover the safety profile, but the description leaves a meaningful gap: it suggests recovery without steering the agent to restore_revision. For a read-only listing tool, this is otherwise reasonably complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description only refers generally to 'a piece of content' and adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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 clear verb-resource pair: 'List the stored revisions of a piece of content.' It says what the tool does and why it is useful. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling restore_revision, which is a closely related action.

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?

The description gives context for when to use the tool — to see what changed or after a bad edit — but it never says when not to use it or names restore_revision as the tool that actually performs restoration. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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