wordpress_list_page_revisionsList revisions for a WordPress page by page ID, so you can review edit history, compare changes, and restore earlier versions.
List revisions for a WordPress page.
| 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 establishes this is a safe read operation, so the behavioral burden is lighter. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no return-shape context, no ordering of revisions, and no note on permissions.
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 short sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource. Nothing is bloated or buried.
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 read-only list tool with an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It omits any routing context against the similarly named wordpress_list_revisions, which is the main gap an agent would need.
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 coverage is 100% and the single page_id parameter is described as 'Page ID'. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema (e.g., where to obtain page_id or what happens with an invalid one), so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (List) and resource (revisions for a WordPress page), which is clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling wordpress_list_revisions, which presumably lists revisions by other target types, so the agent must infer the distinction from the tool name 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?
No guidance on when to use this versus wordpress_list_revisions or wordpress_get_revision. No mention of prerequisites or alternatives. Usage is implied only by the tool name and one-line purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.