MCP WordPress CrunchTools

by crunchtools

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Wordpress List Revisions

wordpress_list_revisions

Read-only

List all revisions for a WordPress post using its post ID, helping you review or restore prior content changes.

Instructions

List revisions for a WordPress post.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "post_id": "<post_id>"
    },
    "name": "wordpress_list_revisions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`post_id`	Yes	Post ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.6.1Oct 17, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / post_id / description
```
Added value: +"Post ID"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / post_id / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
First observedv0.5.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds nothing beyond confirming it lists revisions, which the name already implies. No pagination, ordering, or output details mentioned, though an output schema exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter read tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given readOnly annotation and a full output schema, the safety and return shape are covered. The main gap is routing guidance relative to wordpress_get_revision / wordpress_list_page_revisions, which the description doesn't provide.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (post_id documented). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's 'Post ID' description. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb (List) and resource (revisions) scoped to a Wordpress post. Distinguishable from siblings like wordpress_get_revision (singular) and wordpress_list_page_revisions (pages), though it doesn't explicitly state that distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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_get_revision or wordpress_list_page_revisions. The agent must infer from naming alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.