List all WordPress users to view accounts, roles, and details for site administration and user management.
List all users
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "wp_user_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all users' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify details like pagination, sorting, filtering, or potential rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves key behavioral traits unaddressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('List all users') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly communicates the core function without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the list includes (e.g., user fields, format) or behavioral aspects like performance or errors. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure proper agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, but with no parameters, this is acceptable, and it doesn't contradict the schema, earning a baseline score above 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all users' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('users'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like wp_user_create, but the action is specific enough to avoid vagueness or tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wp_user_create or wp_post_list. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as authentication or permissions needed to list users, which is a significant gap for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.