wp_criu

get_options

Read specified WordPress options from a managed site. Provide the site identifier and option names to retrieve their values.

Instructions

Lee una o varias opciones de WordPress.

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>",
      "options": "<options>"
    },
    "name": "get_options"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it reads options. It does not disclose whether the tool is safe (read-only), idempotent, error handling, or behavior when options do not exist. Minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single sentence, efficient and to the point. No wasted words. However, could be more informative while remaining concise.

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?

For a tool with 2 required params and no output schema, the description is overly minimal. It does not specify what information is returned, how to list all options, or prerequisites. Incomplete for effective use.

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% (only 'site' described). The tool description does not explain what the 'options' parameter expects (e.g., option names, format). The description adds no value beyond the schema, and the missing parameter description is not compensated.

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?

The description clearly states it reads WordPress options, using a specific verb 'Lee' (reads) and resource 'opciones de WordPress'. It also implies it can handle one or multiple options, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_options (writes) and db_query (generic query).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention when rest_proxy or check_translations might be more appropriate. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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

Deploy Server