wordpress_get_mediaRetrieve a WordPress media item by its ID to fetch file details, metadata, and URLs. Use it for media lookups in content management workflows.
Get a single WordPress media item by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| media_id | Yes | Media ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / media_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Media ID"Input schema / properties / media_id / minimumAdded value: +1v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the burden on the description is low. The description adds only the scope detail that it returns a single item rather than a collection; it says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown ID or any auth/permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tight sentence with the resource and key front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably undersized for the surrounding tool set, but every word present earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read tool with a full schema and an output schema already describing the return shape, this is essentially complete. The only shortfall is the absence of any routing hint toward the list/URL siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter (media_id) is documented in the schema, so the schema carries the semantics. The description repeats "by ID" without adding format, range, or sourcing details (e.g., how to obtain a media ID) beyond what is already structured.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ("Get a single WordPress media item") plus the lookup key ("by ID"), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from the adjacent siblings wordpress_list_media, wordpress_get_media_url, or wordpress_update_media, so an agent must infer the boundary from the names alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase "by ID" weakly implies you need a known media_id, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as wordpress_list_media for discovery or wordpress_get_media_url when only a URL is needed. With 27 siblings, that omission matters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.