Skip to main content
Glama

mcp_get_system_info

Retrieve comprehensive system information for a specified WordPress site to diagnose configuration, performance, or environment issues.

Instructions

Get comprehensive system information

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

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does 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 operation, but it does not disclose what 'system information' includes, whether authentication is required, or what the return shape looks like.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant clauses. However, the word 'comprehensive' is vague filler and the sentence is under-specified rather than maximally useful.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations. For a read-only diagnostic tool, the description should at least indicate the scope of system information returned or its relationship to similar tools, but it does neither.

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 only parameter (site) is already documented in the schema with a pointer to list_sites. The description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a verb+resource (get system information), but 'comprehensive system information' is broad and does not distinguish this tool from diagnostic siblings such as mcp_get_debug_info, mcp_get_php_info, mcp_get_health, wp_site_info, or mcp_get_version.

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 when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no alternatives named. In a crowded diagnostic sibling set, an agent is left to guess when this tool is preferred.

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