mcp-wordpress

wp_pages_get

Retrieve a single WordPress page by ID, with full content. Choose context to get raw fields (edit), public rendered version (view), or embed.

Instructions

Fetch a single page by ID with full content. Use context=edit (default) for raw fields, context=view for the public rendered version only.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "wp_pages_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`context`	No		edit

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds context about the 'edit' and 'view' contexts, indicating that 'view' returns only the rendered version. However, it does not mention authentication, error conditions, or side effects, and leaves context=embed unexplained.

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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Fetch a single page by ID with full content') followed by immediate usage guidance. There is no redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description leaves gaps: context=embed in the enum is not explained, and there is no mention of return structure or potential errors. While adequate for basic use, the lack of full coverage for the context parameter prevents a higher score.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'context' parameter well ('edit' for raw fields, 'view' for rendered version), but provides no additional meaning for 'id' beyond the schema's type and requirement. Partial compensation for one of two parameters makes this a 3.

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 function: 'Fetch a single page by ID with full content.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from list tools by specifying 'by ID.' The context parameter clarification also helps differentiate between raw and rendered output.

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 provides usage guidance for the context parameter ('Use context=edit for raw fields, context=view for the public rendered version only'), which is helpful. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like wp_posts_get or wp_pages_list, nor does it discuss exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server