Retrieve terms from any WordPress taxonomy, including categories, tags, and custom taxonomies. Filter by parent, search, or hide empty terms to manage site content.
List terms for any taxonomy (categories, tags, custom taxonomies)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| parent | No | Parent term ID (for hierarchical) | |
| search | No | Search term names | |
| taxonomy | Yes | Taxonomy name | |
| hide_empty | No | Hide terms with no posts |
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: -[
- "taxonomy"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "taxonomy"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about pagination, result ordering, hierarchy handling for the parent parameter, authentication needs, or what a returned term contains. For a 5-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.
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 no filler; the parenthetical examples earn their place by disambiguating the term 'taxonomy'. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral detail noted elsewhere.
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 list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits any hint of the return shape (which term fields come back), ordering, or hierarchy behavior, and with no annotations there is no structured source to fill those 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%, so every parameter (site, taxonomy, parent, search, hide_empty) is already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond restating the taxonomy concept, so the 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+resource ('List terms') and clarifies scope with the parenthetical '(categories, tags, custom taxonomies)', which helps the agent map it onto WordPress taxonomy concepts. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like mcp_list_taxonomies, wp_list_categories, or wp_list_tags, so it falls short of a 5.
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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. An agent must infer from the name and the '(categories, tags)' aside that this generic tool supersedes wp_list_categories/wp_list_tags, but that inference is never stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.