wp_criu

db_query

Execute read-only SQL queries on a WordPress site. Specify the site by ID, label, or URL and provide the SQL statement.

Instructions

Ejecuta una consulta SQL de solo lectura en el sitio.

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>",
      "sql": "<sql>"
    },
    "name": "db_query"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	Yes	site_id, site_label o base_url del sitio.
`sql`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description states 'de solo lectura' (read-only), which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior, required permissions, or query limitations (e.g., timeouts, result sizes).

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks important details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but could include additional context without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the query returns, any row limits, or how to interpret results. Contrast with sibling tools like 'get_site_info' which likely have clearer outputs.

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 coverage is 50%: the 'site' parameter has a description, but 'sql' does not. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for either parameter. For 'sql', there is no hint about valid SQL syntax, restrictions, or expected format. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states it executes a read-only SQL query on the site. The verb 'ejecuta' and resource 'consulta SQL' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'bridge_raw_request' or 'rest_proxy', which might also interact with the database.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that other tools like 'get_options' might be preferred for simple data retrieval, or that this tool is only for read-only queries and not for mutations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server