Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wordpress-mcp

wordpress-mcp

by cvrt-jh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

seo_status

Check the cvrt-seo-manager status to verify version, configuration, and dependencies for a WordPress site.

Instructions

Get cvrt-seo-manager status (version, configured, dependencies).

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_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYesSite id (see list_sites)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.4.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 disclose the payload contents (version, configured, dependencies), which is useful. However, it says nothing about permissions required, whether the plugin must be active, or failure behavior when cvrt-seo-manager is absent.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and the return fields in a compact parenthetical; no filler. The only minor cost is the opaque internal name 'cvrt-seo-manager', which an agent must map to the seo_* family on its own.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, naming the three returned fields gives reasonable coverage. It still omits when the tool is appropriate and what happens under error conditions, leaving the definition only minimally viable.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'site' parameter is documented in the schema ('Site id (see list_sites)'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the parameter, but no compensation is needed.

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 and resource ('Get cvrt-seo-manager status') and enumerates the returned fields (version, configured, dependencies), which distinguishes it from the settings-oriented siblings like seo_get_settings. It does not explicitly say how it differs from seo_get_settings or the generic mcp_get_system_info, leaving some ambiguity.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as seo_get_settings or seo_sitemap_status. The agent must infer that this is a diagnostic call from the word 'status' 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