List media library items from a WordPress site, filtered by media type or search term, with pagination controls.
List media library items
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| search | No | Search term | |
| per_page | No | Items per page (max 100) | |
| media_type | No | Filter by type |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Input schema / properties / siteAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "site"
+]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 burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does almost none of it. It does not say whether results span all sites or the required one, how pagination behaves, what ordering is applied, or what fields come back. Beyond implying a non-destructive read, nothing is disclosed.
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 four-word sentence with zero waste and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse to count as optimally structured for a 5-parameter 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?
Placed in context: no output schema exists but the schema fully documents all five parameters, and annotations are absent, which raises the bar. The description omits the required site scoping, pagination behavior, and any distinction from mcp_list_media, leaving real gaps for a listing tool. The rich schema coverage keeps this from dropping lower.
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%, with page, site, search, per_page, and media_type all documented inline including the media_type enum and per_page max. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (media library items), so the basic purpose is unambiguous. However, the sibling set contains an apparently duplicate tool, mcp_list_media, and the description gives no basis for distinguishing the two. That missing differentiation caps this below a 4.
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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as wp_get_media for a single item or mcp_list_media for the duplicate listing path. The agent must infer all selection logic 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.