Search WordPress posts by keyword and site to find matching content. Specify a site ID and search term, with optional results per page.
Search posts by keyword
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| search | Yes | Search term | |
| per_page | No | Results per page |
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: -[
- "search"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "search"
+]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 yet only says 'Search posts by keyword.' It does not disclose the search scope (title/content/meta), pagination behavior, result ordering, or that this is a read-only operation.
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, which is appropriately sized for the tool's framing. However, it is terse to the point of omitting useful context, keeping it just under a 5.
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 3-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves the return shape (result fields, pagination via per_page) and search semantics unstated. Nothing an agent strictly needs to invoke it is missing, but nothing extra is provided either.
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 site, search, and per_page are already documented in the schema. The description's 'by keyword' adds only marginal meaning to the 'search' parameter and nothing to the others, matching the baseline 3 for schema-covered params.
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 ('Search') and resource ('posts') with the search basis ('by keyword'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling wp_list_posts, which also surfaces posts, so it stops short of 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus wp_list_posts or wp_get_post, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer that this is the keyword-driven alternative to listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.