Retrieve WordPress users from a site and filter by role or search by name or email to manage accounts and permissions.
List WordPress users with role/search filters
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| role | No | Filter by role (administrator, editor, etc.) | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| order | No | Sort direction | DESC |
| search | No | Search by name or email | |
| orderby | No | Order by field | registered |
| per_page | No | Users 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 / 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. 'List' implies a safe read, but the description says nothing about pagination behavior (per_page/page defaults of 20 and 1), sort defaults, permission requirements, or what a result set looks like. For a 7-parameter list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.
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 sentence with the core verb and filters front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a simple list operation, though the terseness is also what leaves the behavioral and routing gaps.
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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description need not explain parameters or return values in detail. However, it omits the required 'site' prerequisite relationship (referenced only inside the schema via 'see list_sites') and gives no differentiation from the duplicate wp_list_users sibling, leaving the definition only minimally complete.
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 is already documented in the schema (role, search, page, per_page, order, orderby, site). The description only echoes the role/search filters and adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('List WordPress users') plus the filter dimensions available (role, search). It is clear what the tool does, but it does nothing to distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling wp_list_users, which an agent could easily confuse with it.
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 phrase 'with role/search filters' hints at when filtering is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as wp_list_users, mcp_get_user, or mcp_search_plugins-style siblings. An agent gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.