Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Nucleo for WordPress

Nucleo for WordPress

by nucleowp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

nucleo-menu-list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists WordPress navigation menus and their items in structured JSON, including labels and targets for pages, posts, URLs, or references. Read menu structure before editing or generating layouts.

Instructions

Lists the navigation menus with their items. Items use the same format as nucleo/menu-set: {label, page | post | url | ref, children}; ref is "home", "archive:", ":" or "term:/". Read only.

Tool call template

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": "nucleo-menu-list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description's trailing 'Read only.' merely repeats them. The real added value is the disclosure of the returned item shape — {label, page | post | url | ref, children} — and the exact ref grammar, which the agent cannot get from annotations or an output schema it does not have.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action before the data-shape detail; every clause carries information. The ref enumeration is dense but is the only place that format is documented, so it earns its space.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: it names the collection, the item fields, the nested children, and the four ref forms. Only minor gaps remain (ordering, whether all menus are returned), which are unlikely to block a correct call.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so schema coverage is moot and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description contradicts or duplicates parameter semantics.

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 and resource: 'Lists the navigation menus with their items.' That distinguishes it by implication from the sibling nucleo-menu-set, which mutates menus, but the description never names that sibling or any alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: a read-only listing tool versus a setter. There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus nucleo-menu-set, no prerequisites, and no exclusions, so the agent must infer the routing itself.

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