Search the WordPress.org theme repository to find themes matching a query. Return paginated results with per-page control.
Search WordPress.org theme repository
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| search | Yes | Search query | |
| per_page | No | Results 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 / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "search"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "search"
+]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, and it says almost nothing: it does not confirm this is a read-only operation, nor describe pagination behavior, result shape, ordering, or any auth/rate constraints. For a remote search tool this is a substantial disclosure 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 five-word sentence, fully front-loaded with the verb and target, with no filler. It is efficient, though it errs toward under-specification rather than being optimally sized for the tool's role.
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?
The tool is simple (3 flat params, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), so the description need not explain returns. Still, with no annotations it should at least signal read-only behavior and that results are remote-repository themes eligible for mcp_install_theme, which it omits.
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 'site', 'search', and 'per_page' are each documented in the schema, including the cross-reference to list_sites. The description adds no syntax, matching, or pagination detail beyond what the schema already supplies, 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 (Search) and resource (WordPress.org theme repository), which contrasts reasonably well with siblings like wp_list_themes (installed themes) and mcp_install_theme. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling or clarify its relationship to mcp_search_plugins.
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?
Qualifying the target as the 'WordPress.org theme repository' implies the tool is for discovering remote themes prior to installation, which gives implied usage. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of local listing tools, and no mention of the install follow-up step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.