List and filter WordPress pages by site, status, parent, or order to retrieve paginated page data.
List WordPress pages
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| order | No | asc | |
| parent | No | Parent page ID (0 for top-level) | |
| status | No | Page status filter | |
| orderby | No | menu_order | |
| per_page | No | Pages per request (max 100) |
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, yet it says nothing about pagination, ordering, filtering behavior, or return shape. "List" implies a read-only operation, but that is the only behavioral signal available.
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 wastes no words, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. There is no filler, yet the brevity leaves critical usage context absent.
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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is inadequate. An agent would need to reverse-engineer filtering, pagination, and ordering semantics from the schema alone, with no behavioral or usage context to guide correct invocation.
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?
At 71% schema description coverage, the schema documents most parameters (site, page, parent, status, per_page) but leaves order and orderby undocumented. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ("List") and resource ("WordPress pages"), which distinguishes it loosely from wp_get_page (singular) and wp_create_page. However, it is close to restating the tool name and offers no explicit sibling differentiation, leaving an agent to infer the list-vs-get distinction.
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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as wp_get_page or wp_list_posts. The agent gets no help deciding between this and the other page-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.