Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wordpress-mcp

wordpress-mcp

by cvrt-jh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

seo_get_post_seo

Retrieve SEO metadata for a WordPress post using its site ID and post ID to review titles, descriptions, and optimization settings.

Instructions

Get the SEO meta 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_seo"
  }
}

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 disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read, but nothing is said about required permissions, whether an empty result is returned for posts with no SEO meta, or what fields the meta contains. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin, though the read-only nature is at least implied.

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 no padding or filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably under-specified rather than concise; one more clause on scope would not have hurt.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should describe what 'SEO meta' resolves to (title, description, canonical, robots, etc.) and what happens when none exists. It leaves the return shape and edge cases entirely undefined for a data-fetch tool.

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' (Post ID) and 'site' (see list_sites) are documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 meta for a post), which is clearer than most siblings like seo_status or seo_get_settings. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as seo_get_post_analysis, seo_list_posts_seo, or seo_get_term_seo.

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 use this versus seo_list_posts_seo or seo_get_post_analysis, and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer that this is a per-post single-fetch and that the site/id pair is required from the schema alone.

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