Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Nucleo for WordPress

Nucleo for WordPress

by nucleowp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

nucleo-section-list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List reusable sections with their parameters and document usage counts to check existing sections before creating a new one.

Instructions

Reusable sections with their parameters and the number of documents that use them. Check here before creating a section.

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-section-list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no description support. The description adds that the result includes usage counts, a genuinely useful behavioral detail, but says nothing about pagination, sorting, or whether the list is exhaustive.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns followed by the workflow cue. Nothing is wasted, though the phrasing 'with their parameters' is slightly ambiguous as to inputs vs. returned fields.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a parameterless read-only list with no output schema, the description covers purpose, result shape, and one workflow trigger. A note on ordering or whether all sections are returned would close the remaining gap, but it is broadly adequate.

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 the baseline of 4 applies; the description's mention of section parameters refers to returned data, not inputs, and doesn't mislead. No input semantics are needed or missing.

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 resource ('reusable sections') and what it returns ('their parameters and the number of documents that use them'), which is more than a restated name. It does not name or distinguish itself against any sibling list tool (nucleo-components-list, nucleo-menu-list, etc.), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Check here before creating a section' gives one implied when-to-use cue tied to an authoring workflow, but it doesn't say when not to use it or which sibling covers related lookups. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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