Skip to main content
Glama
cvrt-jh

wordpress-mcp

by cvrt-jh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mcp_list_menus

Retrieve all navigation menus for a specified WordPress site. Use the site ID to inspect menu structure before managing or editing menu items.

Instructions

List all navigation menus

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

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only says 'list all', leaving whether results are paginated, what fields are returned, or what permissions are needed unexplained. The word 'all' hints at no filtering but is the only behavioral signal.

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?

A single four-word, front-loaded phrase with zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is what leaves the usage and behavior gaps noted elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally viable but thin: it doesn't say what a returned menu contains or how it relates to menu locations. It is adequate to call correctly but not to reason about the result.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single required parameter 'site' is already documented with a pointer to list_sites. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('navigation menus'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings like mcp_get_menu or mcp_get_menu_locations, so it falls short of the top mark.

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 mention of when to prefer mcp_get_menu or mcp_get_menu_locations, and no stated prerequisites beyond the schema-required site id. The agent must infer the selection context entirely.

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