MCP WordPress Server

wp_get_application_passwords

Retrieve application passwords for a specific WordPress user by providing their user ID. Useful for managing authentication tokens.

Instructions

Lists application passwords for a specific user.

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": {
      "user_id": "<user_id>"
    },
    "name": "wp_get_application_passwords"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	No	The ID of the WordPress site to target (from mcp-wordpress.config.json). Required if multiple sites are configured.
`user_id`	Yes	The ID of the user to get application passwords for.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv3.3.23Jul 27, 2026
Removedv3.3.22Jul 25, 2026
Addedv3.3.8May 27, 2026
Removedv3.3.7May 22, 2026
Changed1 schema field changedv3.3.4May 7, 2026
- removedInput schema / $schema
```
Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
```
First observedv1.0.0Dec 28, 2025

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('Lists'), but it does not disclose behavioral details like authentication requirements, the fact that passwords are returned as plaintext, or what happens if the user does not exist.

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?

A single sentence of six words, front-loaded with the action. No unnecessary content; every word is functional.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema, the description could explain that the result is an array of application password objects. It does not, leaving the agent to guess the return structure. The sibling delete tool is not mentioned, but the tool is simple enough that the description is minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema, merely reaffirming that the user_id identifies the target user. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb (Lists), the resource (application passwords), and the scope (for a specific user). It distinguishes from the sibling wp_delete_application_password by focusing on listing, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., wp_delete_application_password). It lacks context on prerequisites, such as the need for the user to exist, or that listing may expose sensitive data.

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