wordpress-mcp

wp_site_info

Retrieve a WordPress site's name, description, URL, and timezone by site ID to verify or display key site details.

Instructions

Get WordPress site information (name, description, URL, timezone)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "site": "<site>"
    },
    "name": "wp_site_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	Yes	Site id (see list_sites)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv3.4.0Oct 1, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / site
```
Added value: +{
+  "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "site"
+]
```
First observedv2.0.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'Get' but does not state authentication requirements, whether the site must exist, what happens on failure, or any rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place by naming the verb, resource, and returned fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return fields. The only gap is the lack of usage context relative to sibling tools, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single 'site' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Get WordPress site information') and enumerates the returned fields (name, description, URL, timezone), making its scope clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like mcp_get_system_info or wp_get_settings, 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mcp_get_system_info, wp_get_settings, or list_sites. The only hint is in the schema parameter description ('see list_sites'), but that is outside the description text and does not compensate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server