mcp-wordpress

wp_pages_get_revisions

Retrieve revision history and autosaves for a WordPress page by its ID.

Instructions

List revisions/autosaves of a page.

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": {
      "page_id": "<page_id>"
    },
    "name": "wp_pages_get_revisions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'revisions/autosaves,' which clarifies the scope, and 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on return format or pagination, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with no annotations to provide context.

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 no unnecessary words. It immediately states the primary purpose and includes the key detail of 'revisions/autosaves,' making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core functionality adequately. It explicitly states the action and scope, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Minor missing details like return shape could be inferred from the context, but the description is not misleading.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'of a page' provides context that page_id refers to the page whose revisions are listed, adding some meaning beyond the schema's bare type. However, it does not elaborate on page_id's value or constraints, leaving the parameter only partially explained.

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 'List revisions/autosaves of a page' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (revisions of a page). It distinguishes from the singular sibling wp_pages_get_revision by explicitly mentioning 'revisions/autosaves' in the plural, indicating it returns multiple items.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling names like wp_pages_get_revision and wp_posts_get_revisions imply distinctions, the description itself fails to state when to choose this tool, such as listing all revisions vs. retrieving one specific revision.

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

Deploy Server