Fetch user details by ID from a specified WordPress site to inspect account, role, or profile information.
Get user details by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | User ID | |
| 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: -[
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "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, but it only implies a read via 'Get.' It does not disclose authentication requirements, permission scope, whether private user fields are returned, or any rate or safety constraints.
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 appropriately compact for a simple lookup tool, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more to explain what 'user details' means and what constraints apply. It does not mention the required 'site' parameter, return fields, or how this differs from wp_get_user, leaving notable gaps.
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%, and both required parameters ('id' and 'site') are documented directly in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema baseline, so a 3 is 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 user details by ID.' It is clear enough to distinguish a read-user operation from create/update/delete, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling wp_get_user or clarify how it relates to mcp_list_users.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name any alternatives. It only implies that an agent should already have a user ID, without explaining how to obtain one or when to prefer list_users instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.