wordpress_get_revisionRetrieve a specific revision of a WordPress post by supplying the post ID and revision ID, letting you review or restore earlier content.
Get a specific revision of a WordPress post.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post_id | Yes | Post ID | |
| revision_id | Yes | Revision ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / post_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Post ID"Input schema / properties / post_id / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / revision_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Revision ID"Input schema / properties / revision_id / minimumAdded value: +1v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the name: no note on whether revisions can be restored, what fields come back, or any permission/visibility constraints. With annotations carrying safety, minimal added value warrants a low score.
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 efficient sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded and clear, though it is so terse that it forgoes any structuring or routing information.
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 explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a simple two-param read tool this is minimally adequate, but the absence of any usage or relationship-to-siblings guidance leaves a gap.
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%, so both parameters are documented in the schema ('Post ID', 'Revision ID'). The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case.
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 specific revision of a WordPress post.' This clearly distinguishes it from wordpress_list_revisions, but it doesn't explicitly name or reference that sibling to sharpen the distinction.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. It never states that this requires both a post_id and a revision_id, nor points to wordpress_list_revisions as the way to discover valid revision IDs, nor contrasts with wordpress_get_post.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.