Retrieve all widgets in a specified WordPress sidebar by site ID and sidebar ID. Use it to inspect widget assignments for a sidebar.
Get all widgets in a sidebar
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| sidebar_id | Yes | Sidebar ID |
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: -[
- "sidebar_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "sidebar_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 behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but the description does not state that this is read-only, whether auth is required, or what the response contains (no output schema). Disclosure is minimal.
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 imperative sentence, front-loaded and free of filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.
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 2-param read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits usage context and behavioral details that would help an agent decide when to use it, leaving gaps for a tool with many siblings.
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% (site and sidebar_id are documented in the schema). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (widgets) with scope (in a sidebar). It implicitly contrasts with mcp_get_widget (singular) and mcp_list_sidebars, though it does not name alternatives. Clear enough for an agent to understand it returns a collection.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The description does not explain when to call this instead of mcp_get_widget or mcp_list_sidebars, or what conditions must be met.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.