wp_criu

rest_proxy

Proxies HTTP requests to internal REST routes of managed WordPress sites, enabling CRUD operations on custom endpoints.

Instructions

Llama una ruta REST interna del WordPress objetivo.

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>",
      "route": "<route>"
    },
    "name": "rest_proxy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	Yes	site_id, site_label o base_url del sitio.
`route`	Yes	Ruta interna, por ejemplo /wc/v3/products o /elementor/v1/...
`method`	No		GET
`params_json`	No	Objeto JSON con query params.
`body_json`	No	Objeto JSON con body.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the call is read-only or can modify data, what side effects occur, or any error behavior. The description is too vague to inform the agent of potential risks.

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?

The description is a single, short sentence with no filler. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly longer to include essential context without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 2 required, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, authentication, or any behavioral details. The agent lacks critical information to use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema covers 80% of parameters with descriptions, but the tool's description adds no additional meaning or context. It does not clarify how parameters like route or method interact, nor does it provide examples or constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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 the tool's function: calling an internal REST route of the target WordPress. It specifies a verb (calls) and a resource (REST route), which is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like bridge_raw_request or db_query, which might also make HTTP requests or query data.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, such as requiring authentication or specific WordPress API availability, nor does it indicate situations where this tool should be avoided.

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

Deploy Server