Retrieve all registered taxonomies for a specified WordPress site using its site ID, so you can inspect available category, tag, and custom taxonomy types.
List all registered taxonomies
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput 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 disclosure burden. 'List' implies read-only, but nothing is said about permission requirements, whether the site parameter must reference an existing site, or pagination/result limits for a registry that could be large.
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 zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than true 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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source for return shape and behavioral context, and it is thin. It is minimum viable for a simple single-parameter list call, but does not say what a taxonomy record contains or how it relates to mcp_get_taxonomy.
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 the single parameter 'site' is documented with a pointer to list_sites. The description adds no format, default, or lookup semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline expectation.
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 and resource ('List all registered taxonomies'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely named sibling mcp_get_taxonomy or from mcp_list_terms, leaving the singular/plural split for the agent to infer.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no note that this is the discovery call preceding mcp_get_taxonomy or mcp_list_terms, and no statement of prerequisites. The agent gets no help choosing among the taxonomy-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.