Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wordpress-mcp

wordpress-mcp

by cvrt-jh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

seo_indexnow_ping

Submit URLs to IndexNow for a WordPress site to notify search engines about new or updated pages.

Instructions

Submit URLs to IndexNow.

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>"
    },
    "name": "seo_indexnow_ping"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYesSite id (see list_sites)
urlsNoURLs to submit

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
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 behavioral burden and fails to meet it. It does not disclose rate limits, whether submitted URLs must belong to the given site, or the consequences of omitting the optional 'urls' array (e.g., submitting all site URLs).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is efficiently front-loaded with the verb and resource, but its extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, leaving key invocation context absent.

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?

For an external submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin. It omits IndexNow prerequisites, the effect of the optional urls parameter, and any indication of success/failure behavior an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema ('Site id (see list_sites)', 'URLs to submit'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about the site/urls relationship or format beyond what the schema already says.

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?

The description gives a clear verb+resource: 'Submit URLs to IndexNow.' An agent knows exactly what happens. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from the very similar sibling seo_sitemap_ping, so it stops short of a 5.

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 ping IndexNow versus alternatives like seo_sitemap_ping, nor any prerequisite (API key, verified site ownership) or rate-limit/quota context, which is critical for an external search-engine submission endpoint.

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