Retrieve the complete Elementor page structure—containers, widgets, and settings—for a specific post or page ID on a WordPress site. Optionally filter settings keys to reduce response size.
Get full Elementor page build (containers, widgets, settings tree)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Post/page ID | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| fields | No | Comma-separated setting keys to include (empty = all) |
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: -[
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "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 burden. 'Get' implies a read, but nothing is said about response size, pagination or depth limits, behavior when a page has no Elementor build, or the cost of fetching a large tree — all material for a full-build fetch.
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 compact sentence with the resource and payload front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical earns its place by naming the tree components.
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 is the only source of behavioral and structural context, and it only hints at the return shape via 'settings tree'. An agent gets the gist but not the depth, format, or filtering interaction with `fields`.
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%, with `id`, `site`, and `fields` all documented in the schema itself ('Comma-separated setting keys to include (empty = all)'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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') and resource ('Elementor page build') and enumerates the payload ('containers, widgets, settings tree'), which differentiates it from siblings like mcp_get_elementor_element or mcp_get_elementor_flat. It falls short of naming those siblings to make the distinction unmistakable.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite several closely related siblings (mcp_get_elementor_flat, mcp_get_elementor_element) that an agent must choose between. The 'full build' phrasing only implies the use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.