Retrieve multiple WordPress option values in a single request by providing a site ID and an array of option names. Avoids repeated calls for bulk settings checks.
Get multiple options at once
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keys | Yes | Array of option names | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) |
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: -[
- "keys"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "keys"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies read-only, but the description omits permissions, error handling, partial-failure behavior, ordering, or limits that an agent needs for safe invocation.
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 zero waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool is simple with a fully documented schema, no output schema, and no annotations. The description states the core action but leaves usage guidance and behavioral context unaddressed, leaving clear gaps for an agent.
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% and both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond 'multiple options', so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (Get), resource (options), and scope (multiple at once), which distinguishes it from singular sibling mcp_get_option. However, it does not name or contrast with mcp_list_options or mcp_get_option explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left 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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The phrase 'at once' hints at bulk efficiency but does not say when to choose this over mcp_get_option or mcp_list_options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.