Retrieve WordPress theme details by stylesheet folder name and site ID, so you can inspect a theme's metadata before updating or debugging.
Get theme details by stylesheet name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| stylesheet | Yes | Theme stylesheet (folder name) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Input schema / properties / siteAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "stylesheet"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "stylesheet"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Beyond implying a read operation with 'Get', it discloses nothing about permissions, error behavior, return values, or side effects. The short phrase adds little behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and the identifying key immediately. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There are no annotations and no output schema, so the description should ideally explain what kind of theme details are returned or any constraints. It does not describe the response shape, required capabilities, or relevant limitations. For a read tool with no structured behavioral coverage, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both required parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only the phrase 'by stylesheet name,' which mirrors the schema's 'Theme stylesheet (folder name)' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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 theme details by stylesheet name.' It is clear that this retrieves a single theme identified by stylesheet. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like wp_list_themes or wp_get_active_theme.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when-not to use it, nor does it name related tools such as wp_list_themes or wp_get_active_theme. Usage context is only implied by 'Get'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.