Read one WordPress content, media, term, or comment object by ID; set context=edit to return raw fields for editing.
Read one content, media, term or comment object. Use context=edit for raw fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| site | No | Configured site name from aism_sites. Omit for the default site. | |
| query | No | Native WordPress query arguments, such as context, status, search, per_page, page and _fields. | |
| resource | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Input schema / properties / siteAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Configured site name from aism_sites. Omit for the default site.",
+ "pattern": "^[a-zA-Z0-9_.-]{1,64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful context=edit distinction for raw vs. rendered fields, but says nothing about permissions, auth, or error behavior for cross-site reads.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the context hint immediately after. Nothing to trim.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description could reasonably say more about what a returned object looks like or how the four resource types differ in shape. The nested query parameter also goes largely undescribed beyond 'raw fields'. Adequate but with real gaps for a 4-parameter tool.
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?
Schema coverage is only 50%, but the description compensates partially: the resource list (content/media/term/comment) illustrates the values the undocumented 'resource' pattern accepts, and context=edit clarifies the nested query object. The 'id' and 'query' parameters remain largely unexplained beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb ('Read one') and enumerates the resource types it covers (content, media, term, comment), which distinguishes it from the list-oriented sibling aism_content_list. It stops short of naming that sibling or clarifying what 'resource' values are valid as strings.
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?
'Use context=edit for raw fields' gives one concrete usage condition, implying the default is a rendered/public view. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus aism_content_list or aism_schema, so selection still requires inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.