WordPress Plugin Directory MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

compare_plugins

Compare a local plugin directory against a WordPress.org plugin slug to identify differences. Supports summary and detailed output formats.

Instructions

Compare a local plugin with a WordPress.org plugin

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": {
      "local_path": "<local_path>",
      "wp_org_slug": "<wp_org_slug>"
    },
    "name": "compare_plugins"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`local_path`	Yes	Path to local plugin directory
`wp_org_slug`	Yes	WordPress.org plugin slug to compare against
`format`	No	Output format (default: "summary")	summary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.5May 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description is too brief to disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the comparison involves network requests, what aspects are compared (versions, files, etc.), or any side effects. The description carries the full burden but fails to provide meaningful transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. For such a short description, it is efficient, though it could benefit from more structure or detail.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits return value details, comparison scope, prerequisites (e.g., both plugins must be accessible), and any limitations. This would leave an AI agent uncertain about how to interpret results.

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 already documents parameters fully. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema offers, which meets the baseline for high coverage. However, it does not elaborate on how parameters affect the comparison.

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?

Description clearly states the tool compares a local plugin with a WordPress.org plugin. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools (download, extract, get info, etc.) do not overlap in function, so it is distinct.

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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites. A tool for comparison should specify context, but it does not.

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

Deploy Server