wordpress-mcp

wp_get_plugin

Retrieve details for a specific WordPress plugin by providing the site ID and plugin identifier, such as 'akismet/akismet.php'.

Instructions

Get plugin details by slug

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>",
      "plugin": "<plugin>"
    },
    "name": "wp_get_plugin"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	Yes	Site id (see list_sites)
`plugin`	Yes	Plugin identifier (e.g., 'akismet/akismet.php')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv3.4.0Oct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / site

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "plugin"
-]New value: +[
+  "site",
+  "plugin"
+]

First observedv2.0.0Jun 21, 2026

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, yet it discloses nothing about permissions, whether the plugin must be installed/active, or what 'details' actually covers. The only implicit signal is that this is a read operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though 'by slug' slightly muddies the identifier semantics the schema calls a plugin identifier.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no indication of what 'details' returns, it leaves gaps an agent would want filled.

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%, with both 'site' and 'plugin' documented, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'by slug' adds mild meaning to the 'plugin' parameter, though the schema's own example is more precise.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get plugin details') and adds the lookup key ('by slug'), so an agent knows it retrieves a single plugin rather than listing them. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling wp_list_plugins.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to the obvious alternatives (wp_list_plugins to discover plugins, mcp_search_plugins to search). The agent must infer the use case entirely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server