Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wordpress-mcp

wordpress-mcp

by cvrt-jh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

fulfillment_queue

Track print queue status counts (pending, printing, printed, failed) and inspect recent job errors for a WordPress site.

Instructions

Print-queue state: status counts (pending/printing/printed/failed) and the recent jobs with their errors.

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": {
      "site": "<site>"
    },
    "name": "fulfillment_queue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYesSite id (see list_sites)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.4.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses return content (counted states and job error details), which is real behavioral value, but it never confirms this is a read-only operation, nor whether results are paginated or scoped by time, so a caller cannot fully predict behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence fragment with no padding; the resource comes first and the payload follows. It loses a point only for being a noun phrase rather than a statement of what the tool does.

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?

For a read tool with no output schema, describing the returned counts and job errors partly compensates, but the absence of annotations, output schema, and any usage context leaves gaps about safety and when this tool should be preferred over the related fulfillment_status tool.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it fully ('Site id (see list_sites)') at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the site parameter or its implications for the queue returned.

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 names a specific resource (the print/fulfillment queue) and enumerates what it exposes: status counts across four states and recent jobs with errors. That is well beyond a tautology. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling fulfillment_status, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus fulfillment_status, fulfillment_get_settings, or fulfillment_update_check. The nearest-sounding sibling (fulfillment_status) is not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the names alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools