wordpress-mcp

fulfillment_status

Check fulfillment pipeline health for a WordPress site: configured credentials, ClickUp list/assignee, last print-agent poll, and print-queue counts.

Instructions

Pipeline health: which credentials are set, ClickUp list/assignee, when the print agent last polled, and print-queue counts.

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_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	Yes	Site id (see list_sites)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv3.4.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It lists the returned fields but never states that this is a safe read with no side effects, nor does it mention permissions or rate limits. For a status endpoint, the omission is notable though partially implied by 'pipeline health.'

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 opens with the category ('Pipeline health') and then enumerates the components. It is efficient with no filler, though the colon-list format is terse rather than maximally informative.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description usefully compensates for the missing output schema by enumerating what is returned. However, it leaves gaps around when to use it versus sibling fulfillment diagnostics and does not state that it is read-only.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines 'site' as a site id referencing list_sites. The description adds no parameter information, which meets the expected baseline when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states this is a pipeline-health status report and enumerates its contents (credentials, ClickUp list/assignee, last poll, queue counts). It is a clear read-only diagnostic rather than an action, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like fulfillment_queue or fulfillment_get_settings.

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 is given on when to call this versus the many fulfillment siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended audience, or conditions that select this diagnostic over fulfillment_get_settings or fulfillment_queue.

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

Deploy Server