Retrieve and filter WordPress users by site, role, or search term, with paginated results. Use it to find or audit user accounts across a WordPress site.
List WordPress users
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| roles | No | Filter by role(s), comma-separated | |
| search | No | Search by name or email | |
| per_page | No | Users per page (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, and it discloses nothing beyond the title. It does not mention that listing users is typically a privileged operation requiring capability checks, nor how pagination behaves or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, so it is not wasteful. But at four words it is under-specified for a five-parameter tool with no annotations, falling short of "appropriately sized" even though it is tidy.
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?
With five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description leaves too much unresolved for an agent to call the tool confidently. Auth requirements, default result shape, and the distinction from mcp_list_users are all absent.
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 all five parameters (site, page, per_page, roles, search) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, which meets the baseline of 3 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 gives a clear verb and resource ("List WordPress users"), so an agent knows the operation. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings that do nearly the same thing, notably mcp_list_users and woo_list_customers, nor from wp_get_user. With that ambiguity unresolved, this is only minimally viable.
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 stated context for when to use this tool rather than mcp_list_users or wp_get_user, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The listing purpose is implied by the name alone, which is thin guidance for a tool with several close siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.