Get taxonomy details and schema for a WordPress site and taxonomy name to inspect term fields, labels, and structure before managing content.
Get taxonomy details and schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| taxonomy | Yes | Taxonomy name (e.g., category, product_cat) |
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: -[
- "taxonomy"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "taxonomy"
+]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 burden. It omits whether this is read-only, what the returned 'schema' contains, error behavior for unknown taxonomies, permission requirements, or whether the response is cached. 'details and schema' is an opaque phrase.
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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb-object pattern. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to earn the space it does not use.
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?
No output schema and no annotations mean the description must explain what 'taxonomy details and schema' returns. Against a crowded sibling set including mcp_list_taxonomies and mcp_list_terms, it is not complete enough for an agent to choose or invoke confidently.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema (site id, taxonomy name with examples). The description adds nothing beyond that, so 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 verb (Get) and resource (taxonomy details and schema), which is adequate but generic. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling mcp_list_taxonomies, leaving the agent to infer that this is the detailed single-taxonomy lookup versus the listing tool.
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 indication of when to use this versus mcp_list_taxonomies or mcp_list_terms. The agent gets no guidance on whether 'get' returns one taxonomy's definition and its schema versus enumerating taxonomies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.