wordpress_search_postsSearch WordPress posts by keyword in titles or content and return paginated results, making it easy to locate relevant articles.
Search WordPress posts by keyword in title and content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default: 1) | |
| keyword | Yes | Search keyword | |
| per_page | No | Results per page (default: 10) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / keyword / descriptionAdded value: +"Search keyword"Input schema / properties / page / descriptionAdded value: +"Page number (default: 1)"Input schema / properties / per_page / descriptionAdded value: +"Results per page (default: 10)"v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description need not restate it. The phrase 'in title and content' adds real behavioral context by disclosing which fields are matched, but nothing is said about pagination or result ordering beyond what the schema implies.
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. Every clause ('by keyword', 'in title and content') carries 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 no explanation, and the schema fully documents the three parameters. The description covers the essential search semantics; only the absence of any sibling routing keeps it short of 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so keyword, page, and per_page are all documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description's only addition is clarifying that the keyword matches title and content, which is modest value 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?
States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('WordPress posts') plus the scope of the search ('in title and content'). This distinguishes it functionally from wordpress_list_posts and wordpress_get_post, though it never names a sibling to make the boundary explicit.
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?
The verb 'search' implies when to reach for it versus listing or fetching, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no reference to wordpress_list_posts as the alternative for unfiltered enumeration. Usage is implied rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.