Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wordpress-mcp

wordpress-mcp

by cvrt-jh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

seo_keyword_check

Run a keyword analysis check for a WordPress site to evaluate SEO keyword usage and identify optimization gaps.

Instructions

Run the keyword analysis check.

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>",
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "seo_keyword_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYesSite id (see list_sites)
paramsYesKeyword-check inputs

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
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 does not state whether this is a read-only diagnostic or performs mutations, whether it requires authentication, whether it has side effects, or what the check actually inspects. The word 'check' weakly implies a read operation but is not reliable.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, but its extreme brevity leaves it under-specified for a tool with two required parameters including a nested free-form object.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Completely inadequate for a tool that requires a site ID and a nested params object, has no annotations, and has no output schema. An agent cannot determine what the params object should contain or what the tool returns.

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%, so the baseline is 3. However the params object is completely free-form with only 'Keyword-check inputs' as a description, meaning neither the schema nor the description tells an agent what keys or values to pass.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States an action (run) and a resource (keyword analysis check) but provides no detail on what is analyzed or how it differs from sibling SEO tools like seo_get_post_analysis or seo_status. The description essentially restates the tool name in slightly different words.

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 indication of when this tool should be used versus other SEO analysis or status tools. No prerequisites, no alternatives, no context about the site parameter or what triggers this check.

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