Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wp-mcp-control-server

wp-mcp-control-server

by mpierre135
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

wp_elementor_find_widgets

Locate Elementor widgets on a page by widget type, helping you identify specific elements for editing or content analysis.

Instructions

Find widgets on a page filtered by widget_type (e.g. button, image, raven-heading)

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>",
      "widget_type": "<widget_type>"
    },
    "name": "wp_elementor_find_widgets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
page_idYes
widget_typeYesWidget type to filter by

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation (find) and filtering, but it does not specify the output format, whether it returns widget IDs or full details, or any side effects. The absence of explicit read-only or non-destructive mention is a gap.

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 sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded with purpose and filter criteria. However, it could still be considered slightly under-specified given the lack of other elements.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns. It covers the input and filter but omits output details, leaving the agent uncertain about the return structure.

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 50% (only widget_type has a description). The description adds example values for widget_type, which is helpful, but does not elaborate on page_id or provide additional format constraints beyond the schema.

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 the tool finds widgets on a page and filters by widget_type. It gives specific examples (button, image, raven-heading), distinguishing it from sibling tools like wp_elementor_get_widget_catalog or wp_elementor_list_elements.

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 finding specific widgets on a page but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listing all widgets or searching content. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools