Lists available Elementor library templates for a chosen WordPress site and optionally filters them by header, footer, single, archive, loop item, page, or popup.
List all Elementor library templates (headers, footers, singles, loop items, popups)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| type | No | Filter by type (header, footer, single, archive, loop-item, page, popup) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Input schema / properties / siteAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "site"
+]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, yet it says nothing about pagination, result ordering, permissions required, or whether the listing is scoped to the given site. Only the enumerable template categories give any behavioral hint.
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 front-loaded sentence with the resource and covered categories, and no filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is adequate: the agent knows what is listed and how to filter. It is only slightly thin on whether results are paginated or how templates are identified.
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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the type filter's allowed values. The description's parenthetical list loosely restates the type values but adds no syntax or filtering nuance 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 specific verb (List) and resource (Elementor library templates) and enumerates the template categories it covers. It is clear what comes back, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling Elementor tools like mcp_search_elementor or mcp_get_elementor_build.
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 guidance on when to use this versus the many other Elementor tools (mcp_search_elementor, mcp_get_elementor_build, mcp_get_elementor_flat) or why a list is needed before fetching a template. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.