wordpress-mcp

mcp_get_media_stats

Retrieve media library statistics, including counts by type and total size, to analyze your WordPress site's media usage.

Instructions

Get media library statistics (counts by type, total size)

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": "mcp_get_media_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv3.4.0Oct 1, 2026
- 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"
+]
```
First observedv2.0.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add useful context by disclosing the shape of the returned data (counts by type and total size), but it says nothing about required permissions, read-only safety, scoping, or cost.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key resource and the returned metric are stated immediately.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys the resource and the return contents, which is enough to select and invoke it. Only the lack of any usage note keeps it from being fully complete.

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 ('site') with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it and the description adds nothing about it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get media library statistics') and even specifies the contents of the result ('counts by type, total size'), which distinguishes it from mcp_list_media. It does not name or differentiate against a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as mcp_list_media or mcp_get_media, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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

Deploy Server