mcp-wordpress

wp_get_taxonomies

List all taxonomies registered on a WordPress site, including custom ones like product_cat. Filter by post type to see only taxonomies linked to that type.

Instructions

List all taxonomies registered on this site, including custom (e.g., product_cat for WooCommerce). Optional type filter to list only taxonomies associated with a given post type.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "wp_get_taxonomies"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavior context: includes custom taxonomies (e.g., product_cat for WooCommerce) and explains the filter's effect. However, it does not mention return format or any limitations, but for a read-only list, the core behavior is transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently covers purpose and filter.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete enough. It covers scope, custom taxonomy inclusion, and the filter. It lacks return structure details, but given the low complexity and absence of an output schema, this is a minor gap.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema has only one parameter 'type' with no description. The description fully explains it as an 'Optional type filter to list only taxonomies associated with a given post type,' providing meaning beyond the bare schema and compensating for 0% schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'List all taxonomies registered on this site' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the optional type filter and distinguishes from sibling tools that handle terms or post types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage by stating it lists taxonomies and supports a filter, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like term-listing tools or provide when/when-not guidance. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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

Deploy Server