Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wordpress-mcp

wordpress-mcp

by cvrt-jh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

seo_get_post_analysis

Retrieve the SEO score and detected issues for a WordPress post to pinpoint optimization problems and guide content fixes.

Instructions

Get the SEO analysis (score, issues) for a post.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "seo_get_post_analysis"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPost ID
siteYesSite id (see list_sites)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read ('Get') and names the return fields, but says nothing about whether the analysis is computed on demand, cached, requires a prior analysis run, or what permissions are needed.

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 tight sentence with the payload front-loaded. No waste, though it is arguably too sparse for the context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it covers just the return fields at a high level. For a read tool this borders on adequate, but the lack of any differentiation from seo_get_post_seo leaves a real gap.

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 description coverage is 100% (both 'id' and 'site' are documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Get') and resource ('SEO analysis') and even enumerates the return payload ('score, issues'). However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the closely named sibling seo_get_post_seo, so an agent could easily confuse the two.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus seo_get_post_seo, seo_list_posts_seo, or seo_keyword_check. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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