Retrieve detailed WordPress media info, including sizes and metadata, using a site ID and media ID. Inspect attachments before editing, embedding, or managing them.
Get detailed media item info (sizes, metadata)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Media ID | |
| 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: -[
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "id"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' reasonably implies a read-only operation, and it adds which fields are returned (sizes, metadata), but it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, authorization needs, or error behavior. Minimal but partially informative.
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?
The single sentence is front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be slightly sharper by noting it fetches by ID.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover return values and basic behavior. It names the returned data (sizes, metadata) but omits any detail on response structure, error cases, or authentication, leaving some gaps for a tool that returns a complex media object.
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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters (id as Media ID, site referencing list_sites). The description adds no parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?
The description states a clear verb (Get) and resource (media item), and specifies scope with returned data (sizes, metadata). It does not distinguish this tool from similar siblings like wp_get_media or mcp_list_media, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The retrieval intent is implied only by the verb 'Get' and the required id parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.