WordPress Code Review MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| GUIDELINES_URL | Yes | The base URL where your coding guidelines are hosted (e.g., https://yourdomain.com/guidelines) |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {} |
| resources | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| get_guidelinesB | Get development guidelines from the configured source |
| validate_codeB | Validate code against configured coding standards |
| security_checkB | Perform security analysis on code using configured security rules |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| Main Guidelines | Primary development guidelines |
| Security Rules | Security validation rules and patterns |
| Validation Rules | Code validation rules and standards |
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of code review: fetching guidelines, performing security analysis, and validating coding standards. There is no overlap in their purposes, making them easily distinguishable for an agent.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_guidelines, security_check, validate_code). The naming is clear and predictable, aiding in tool selection.
Three tools is appropriate for a simple code review server, covering essential tasks without overwhelming the user. The count is well-scoped for the domain.
The tools cover core code review operations: retrieving guidelines, security checking, and validation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for submitting code for full review), but the surface is sufficient for basic automation.