Retrieve a WordPress user's details by their ID and site. Use when you need to fetch user information programmatically.
Get a user by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | User ID | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) |
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: -[
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "id"
+]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. It implicitly indicates a read operation but says nothing about authentication requirements, error handling for invalid IDs, or whether sensitive fields are returned.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The action and resource are immediately clear, and there is no filler or redundancy.
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?
For a simple read tool whose parameters are fully described in the schema and which has no output schema to explain, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves gaps around sibling differentiation and any behavioral context, but these are limited in impact for a basic getter.
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 'id' and 'site' are already documented in the input schema. The description's 'by ID' adds no syntax, format, or constraint beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for fully covered parameters.
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 clear verb and resource ('Get a user'), plus the key input qualifier ('by ID'). However, it does not differentiate from siblings such as wp_list_users, wp_me, or the duplicate mcp_get_user, leaving the agent to infer when this specific getter is appropriate.
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?
The phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is used when a specific user ID is already known, which is adequate implied usage for a simple getter. But it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when/when-not guidance relative to wp_list_users, wp_me, or mcp_get_user.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.