wordpress_get_pageRetrieve a single WordPress page by its ID, including full content, for direct page lookups and content display.
Get a single WordPress page by ID with full content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_id | Yes | Page ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / page_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Page ID"Input schema / properties / page_id / minimumAdded value: +1v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already confirms this is a safe read, so the description does not need to establish that. It does add one useful behavioral detail — 'full content' signals the complete page body is returned rather than a summary — but says nothing about permissions on unpublished/draft pages or error behavior for missing IDs.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier ('with full content') is stated up front. It is efficient, though arguably it is minimal to the point of under-specification rather than tightly optimized.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. For a one-parameter lookup tool the description is nearly sufficient, with only the lack of sibling differentiation and error/visibility context keeping it from being complete.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage the single parameter is already documented in the schema, and the description merely echoes it ('by ID'). Baseline 3 is correct; no additional format or constraint detail is supplied beyond the schema.
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?
The description states a specific verb (Get), resource (WordPress page), and access key (by ID) with the scope of content returned (full content). It is clear on its own, but it never acknowledges its nearest sibling wordpress_get_post, nor does it differentiate itself from that tool beyond the resource noun.
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?
Usage is only implied: the resource name tells an agent this is the page-side counterpart to wordpress_get_post, and 'by ID' indicates the lookup key. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives, and no note about what to do when only a slug is known.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.