Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Nucleo for WordPress

Nucleo for WordPress

by nucleowp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

nucleo-site-describe

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve site details including URL, language, design tokens, content types, layouts, plugins, and warnings so an AI agent can understand the WordPress site before building pages.

Instructions

Name, URL, language, date and time formats, environment type, Nucleo version, breakpoints, tokens, available blocks, number of documents, and the content types and taxonomies with registeredBy: nucleo-model (declared with model-set), wordpress, plugin-or-theme (registered by another plugin or the theme; modeled = true when a Nucleo field group targets it), or conflict (declared in the model but registered first by other code). Only the types the current user can edit. warnings lists site settings that make the pages look wrong (language pack missing, English date format on a site in another language). cache.empty is true when the Nucleo cache misses tokens or layouts: run cache-rebuild. layouts lists the published layouts with area and number of conditions. plugins lists the detected integrations (woocommerce, polylang, wpml, yoast, rankmath, acf).

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-site-describe"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds material behavior beyond that: results are scoped to what the current user can edit, registeredBy classifies each type into five named provenance categories with the modeled=true nuance, warnings explains conditions that make pages look wrong, and cache.empty explains when the cache layer is missing data. It does not say whether an explicit site/workspace argument is needed or how large the payload typically is.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

There is essentially no wasted content – every clause describes a returned field – but it is one long run-on sentence with nested parentheticals rather than a front-loaded purpose statement followed by details. An agent must parse the entire block to learn what the tool is for, which hurts scannability.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so thoroughly, covering nearly every field plus conditional semantics for warnings, cache.empty, layouts and plugins. What it omits is scope (current site only?) and any relation to export/import/catalog tools that also expose site data.

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 (empty object schema), so there is no parameter meaning to add and baseline 4 applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents the calling surface.

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?

The description enumerates precisely what the tool surfaces about the site (name, URL, language, formats, environment, version, breakpoints, tokens, blocks, document count, content types and taxonomies, warnings, cache state, layouts, plugins), so an agent can tell it is a read of site-level metadata. It never uses an explicit verb (e.g. 'returns') and does not distinguish itself from neighbours like nucleo-site-export or nucleo-catalog-get, leaving the purpose clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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?

Use is only implied by the payload description – there is no explicit 'call this before/after X' or 'use this instead of Y'. The one concrete routing cue is buried mid-sentence: when cache.empty is true, 'run cache-rebuild', which names a sibling and the condition that selects it.

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