Skip to main content
Glama
cvrt-jh

wordpress-mcp

by cvrt-jh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mcp_get_health

Retrieve a WordPress site's health status and score by site ID to monitor performance, identify issues, and support maintenance decisions.

Instructions

Get site health status and score

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYesSite id (see list_sites)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv3.4.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / site
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "site"
+]
  2. First observedv2.0.0

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 bears the full burden. It implies a read operation but never states permissions required, whether the check is expensive/rate-limited, or what the returned 'status and score' actually contains. For a diagnostics tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with no waste. It is arguably too terse for a diagnostics tool, but there is no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

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 should explain what the health status/score represents and roughly what comes back. It doesn't, leaving an agent unable to anticipate the response or distinguish this from sibling health/debug tools.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'site' parameter is documented in the schema with a pointer to list_sites. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Get site health status and score' clearly states it returns a diagnostic health status/score for a site. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like mcp_get_plugins_health, mcp_get_debug_info, or mcp_get_system_info, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 on when to use this versus the many other diagnostics tools (mcp_get_plugins_health, mcp_get_debug_info, mcp_get_system_info, mcp_check_updates). The single param description points to list_sites, but the description itself gives no usage context or exclusions.

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