Retrieve all Advanced Custom Fields values for a WordPress post by site and post ID, with formatted or raw output.
Get all ACF field values for a post
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| format | No | formatted | |
| post_id | Yes | Post ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Input schema / properties / siteAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "post_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "post_id"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no permission/auth requirements, no rate or size limits, no statement of what the return looks like, and no explanation of the formatted-vs-raw tradeoff. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.
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. It is efficient, though its brevity is a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain the return shape and the effect of the format parameter, and it does neither. An agent cannot tell what structure the ACF field values come back in or how raw output differs.
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 67%, below the level where the schema alone suffices. The 'format' enum (formatted/raw) has no description in either the schema or the tool description, so the agent gets no explanation of how raw vs formatted changes field values, and 'site'/'post_id' semantics come purely from 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 and resource ('Get all ACF field values for a post'), so the operation is unambiguous. However it does not distinguish itself from the sibling acf_get_post_field (singular) or acf_update_post_fields, leaving the plural/singular choice to inference.
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 batch read versus acf_get_post_field for a single field, and no prerequisites or context beyond the one-line purpose. The agent must guess from the tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.