Skip to main content
Glama
cvrt-jh

wordpress-mcp

by cvrt-jh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mcp_optimize_tables

Optimize all WordPress database tables for a given site to reclaim storage and improve query performance.

Instructions

Optimize all database tables

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. It implies a database mutation but says nothing about safety, permissions, whether tables are locked, expected duration, or whether the operation is reversible. The only disclosure is the 'all tables' scope, which rules out selective optimization but leaves the operational profile opaque.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though its 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.

Completeness2/5

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

A database-mutating maintenance tool with no annotations and no output schema should explain the effect of the operation, its safety profile, and what the agent gets back. None of that is present, leaving an agent unable to judge risk or expected outcome before invoking it.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single 'site' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, though 'all tables' does implicitly confirm there is no table-selection parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (optimize) and resource (database tables) with clear scope ('all'). It is distinguishable from read-only siblings like mcp_get_tables, but it does not differentiate itself from other maintenance siblings such as mcp_clean_revisions or mcp_clean_comments.

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?

No guidance on when to run this versus alternatives. The description gives no prerequisites, no indication that cleanup tools (mcp_clean_revisions, mcp_clean_comments) might be relevant, and no context about when optimization is appropriate.

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