MCP WordPress CrunchTools

by crunchtools

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Wordpress Get Comment

wordpress_get_comment

Read-only

Retrieve a single WordPress comment by ID to view its content, author, and status.

Instructions

Get a single WordPress comment by ID.

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": {
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>"
    },
    "name": "wordpress_get_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`comment_id`	Yes	Comment ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.6.1Oct 17, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / comment_id / description
```
Added value: +"Comment ID"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / comment_id / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
First observedv0.5.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe-read profile, and the output schema covers the return shape, so the description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond what structured fields provide (no error handling for missing IDs, no auth/permission notes). It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.

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?

One short sentence with the key scoping word ('single') front-loaded; nothing is padded or wasted.

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 simple single-resource read with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, little more is needed. Only a small routing hint toward list_comments versus get_comment would improve it.

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 coverage is 100% with a single documented parameter, so the schema already defines comment_id. The phrase 'by ID' adds no syntax or format detail, making this the baseline case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (get), resource (WordPress comment), and scope (single, by ID), which separates it from wordpress_list_comments. It does not name siblings or explicitly contrast with wordpress_get_post-style retrieval, but the intent is unambiguous.

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: call this when you have a comment ID and need exactly one comment, rather than listing. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of prerequisites, so it stays at the minimum-viable level.

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