List WordPress posts filtered by category, tag, author, status, or search term.
List WordPress posts with optional filters
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| tags | No | Tag ID(s), comma-separated | |
| order | No | desc | |
| author | No | Author ID | |
| search | No | Search term | |
| status | No | Post status filter | |
| orderby | No | date | |
| per_page | No | Posts per page (max 100) | |
| categories | No | Category ID(s), comma-separated |
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 behavioral burden. 'List' implies a safe read, but nothing is said about pagination limits, default ordering, return shape, or permissions. The one hint of behavior, per_page max 100, lives only in the schema.
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 zero waste. It is arguably too terse for a 10-parameter tool, but there is no filler to cut.
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 10-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits filter behavior, pagination, default ordering, and what a returned post contains. It is not misleading, but it is far too thin to stand in for the missing structured context.
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 80%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter (site, page, tags, author, search, status, per_page, categories); order and orderby carry only enum defaults. The description adds no filter syntax or semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.
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 and resource ('List WordPress posts') plus scope ('optional filters'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like wp_search_posts or wp_list_pages, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite wp_search_posts and wp_list_pages being obvious siblings. 'With optional filters' hints at capability but gives no conditions for choosing this tool over search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.