MCP WordPress CrunchTools

by crunchtools

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Wordpress Test Connection

wordpress_test_connection

Read-only

Test WordPress REST API connectivity by verifying credentials and returning connection status.

Instructions

Test connection to WordPress REST API.

Verifies API credentials and returns connection status.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "wordpress_test_connection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.1Oct 17, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
First observedv0.5.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the non-mutating nature is covered. The description adds useful context that the call verifies credentials and returns a connection status, but says nothing about failure modes (e.g. whether auth errors are returned as a status or thrown) or rate limits.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The second sentence slightly overlaps the first ('Test connection' vs 'returns connection status') but still adds the credential-verification angle, so it largely earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it is complete for a simple connectivity probe. The only shortfall is the absence of any usage context for when to invoke it relative to the CRUD siblings.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly does not invent parameter detail.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Test connection') and resource ('WordPress REST API'), and the second sentence clarifies the check is about credentials and connection status. It is implicitly distinguishable from every sibling, none of which test connectivity, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: 'verifies API credentials' suggests it should be called when validating configuration before other operations. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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