List posts from any WordPress custom post type, with filters for site, status, pagination, order, and sort field.
List posts of any custom post type
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| type | Yes | Post type name | |
| order | No | Sort direction | DESC |
| status | No | Post status filter | any |
| orderby | No | Order by field | date |
| per_page | No | Posts per page |
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: -[
- "type"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "type"
+]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 and delivers almost nothing beyond 'List' implying a read. It doesn't state whether results are paginated in the response, what fields come back, or any permission requirements — notable for a 7-param listing tool with no output schema.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, but on pure conciseness it wastes nothing.
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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the parameter surface is covered, but the description says nothing about what the list returns, how the inherently paginated result behaves, or which sites/types are valid. Adequate but thin for a listing tool in a crowded namespace of post/CPT/term listers.
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 all seven parameters including the required site and type are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting guidance beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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 ('List') and resource ('posts of any custom post type'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from wp_list_posts at a glance. It stops short of explicitly naming the standard-post sibling or the post-type prerequisite, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 and no alternatives named. An agent must infer on its own that wp_list_posts handles built-in posts while this tool handles CPTs, and that wp_search_posts is the route for filtered lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.