Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wordpress-mcp

wordpress-mcp

by cvrt-jh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

seo_sitemap_ping

Ping search engines with a WordPress site's sitemap to prompt discovery and indexing of updated content. Submit the site ID to send the ping.

Instructions

Ping search engines with the sitemap.

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_sitemap_ping"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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 behavioral burden. It does not disclose that this makes outbound network calls to third-party search engines, which engines are pinged, whether it is rate-limited or idempotent, or what state changes (if any) occur — all material for a side-effecting external call.

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 short sentence with the verb and target front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the missing behavioral and usage context.

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 a tool that fires outbound requests to external services, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what the call actually does and what the caller gets back (success/failure semantics, per-engine results). Instead it offers only the headline action, leaving the agent under-informed before calling.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Site id (see list_sites)'), so the schema already does the documenting and the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the parameter, but nothing is missing either.

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 (ping) and a specific resource (search engines, via the sitemap), so the operation is immediately legible. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as seo_sitemap_status or seo_indexnow_ping, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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 invoke this versus seo_sitemap_status (check state) or seo_indexnow_ping (alternative submission channel), nor any precondition such as 'sitemap must exist/be enabled'. The agent is left to infer the trigger conditions from the name 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