mcp-wordpress

wp_get_revision

Retrieve a specific WordPress post or page revision with its raw title, excerpt, and content.

Instructions

Get one post/page revision, including its raw title, excerpt, and content.

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": {
      "ref": "<ref>",
      "revision_id": "<revision_id>"
    },
    "name": "wp_get_revision"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`ref`	Yes
`post_type`	No	page
`revision_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Sep 3, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The 'raw' qualifier adds genuine context that title/excerpt/content are unfiltered revision values, distinguishing the output from regular post/page getters. However, it does not address permissions, what 'raw' entails, or behavior when the revision or ref is invalid.

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?

A single 14-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, lists the return fields compactly, and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is too thin. The semantics of the two required parameters, the default post_type behavior, and the relationship to sibling get/revision tools are all missing, so an agent lacks what it needs to call the tool correctly on the first attempt.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — and it largely does not. 'ref' and 'revision_id', and how they relate, are completely unexplained; only the 'post/page' phrase hints at the post_type enum. An agent cannot reliably determine what 'ref' refers to.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Get'), a distinct resource ('one post/page revision'), and the returned contents (raw title, excerpt, and content). The qualifier 'one' implicitly separates it from wp_list_revisions, but it never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not say when fetching a revision is preferable to wp_get_post/wp_get_page, nor how it relates to wp_list_revisions, wp_diff_revision, or wp_restore_revision. Nothing is misleading, but the agent must infer the workflow from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server