mcp-wordpress

wp_users_get

Fetch a single WordPress user by ID. Use edit context to retrieve email, locale, and capabilities with the manage_options permission.

Instructions

Fetch a single user by id. Edit context returns email, locale, capabilities (requires manage_options).

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_users_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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the 'edit' context returns specific fields (email, locale, capabilities) and that capabilities require manage_options, adding valuable behavioral context. However, it does not mention read-only status, error handling, or default behavior explicitly, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 long, front-loads the primary purpose in the first sentence, and adds a relevant behavioral note in the second. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 get-by-id tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, key parameter behavior, and permission requirements. It lacks details about return format or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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 input schema has no property descriptions, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies that 'id' is the user identifier and explains the effect of the 'edit' context for the context parameter. However, it does not explain the 'view' or 'embed' contexts, leaving partial coverage of the parameter semantics.

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 'Fetch a single user by id', which specifies a verb ('fetch'), a resource ('user'), and a scope ('by id'). It distinguishes from siblings like wp_users_list and wp_users_get_current by focusing on a single user lookup.

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 for fetching a single user by ID but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The information about 'Edit context' is behavioral rather than guidance on when to use this tool vs. others. No explicit 'use this when' or 'use another tool when' is provided.

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

Deploy Server