Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wordpress-mcp-server

wordpress-mcp-server

by bgildea
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get site info

get_site_info
Read-only

Retrieves a WordPress site's name, tagline, URL, and available REST namespaces so agents can identify and inspect the connected site.

Instructions

Return the WordPress site's name, tagline, URL and available REST namespaces.

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_site_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by enumerating exactly what is returned, which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about authentication needs or whether namespaces vary by permission.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every clause names a concrete returned field.

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?

For a no-argument inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers the return payload and the annotations cover safety. The only gap is not noting whether the namespace list depends on user capabilities or authentication state.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter meaning the description could add or omit.

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 (Return) and a precisely enumerated resource: the site's name, tagline, URL and REST namespaces. An agent can immediately tell this is a site-level metadata tool, clearly distinct from post-level siblings like get_post or list_posts.

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 use case is implied by the payload (site identity and namespace discovery), and a zero-parameter tool needs little routing guidance. However, it never says when to prefer it over siblings such as get_post, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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