wordpress_get_site_infoFetch WordPress site details including title, description, URL, timezone, and settings to verify configuration or display site metadata.
Get WordPress site information.
Returns site title, description, URL, timezone, and other settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds a brief list of returned data, but it does not go beyond annotations or the output schema to describe auth needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's action and followed by return details. No filler or redundancy in the prose itself.
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 simple no-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is sufficient. It could be slightly richer by clarifying its relationship to wordpress_test_connection, but it covers the core operation.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics carry no burden. The empty schema is consistent with the description, and the baseline for zero-param tools is 4.
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 and resource: 'Get WordPress site information,' and lists returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with wordpress_test_connection or other read tools.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The tool's purpose is implied by 'Get site information,' but an agent receives no explicit routing advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.