Retrieve a single WordPress option value using the site ID and option key to inspect stored settings.
Get a single option value
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Option name | |
| 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: -[
- "key"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "key"
+]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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description does not disclose whether authentication is required, what happens when the key is missing, whether the value is cached, or any other behavioral trait. It adds almost nothing beyond the verb.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though its extreme brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions rather than detracting from structure.
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?
For a simple two-parameter getter with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It does not explain the return value (no output schema exists), error behavior, or how the result might differ for missing options, leaving an agent to infer key details.
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 schema already documents both parameters ('key' and 'site'). The description adds no additional meaning or syntax guidance beyond what the structured fields provide, 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 specific verb and resource: 'Get a single option value'. The word 'single' implies it retrieves one option, which distinguishes it from sibling batch/list tools like mcp_list_options and mcp_bulk_get_options. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with those alternatives, so it falls 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.
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. It does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or point to sibling tools such as mcp_list_options or mcp_bulk_get_options for other retrieval patterns.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.