Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Nucleo for WordPress

Nucleo for WordPress

by nucleowp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

nucleo-status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the health of Nucleo's build pipeline, including versions, artifact storage, document counts, queued or failed rebuilds, stale documents, and last build time.

Instructions

Nucleo, PHP and WordPress version, artifact store driver, number of documents, artifacts (count and total bytes of the current artifact folder), queue (pending rebuilds), failed (rebuilds that failed, with attempts and error), stale (ids of documents with a stale section or quality issues, max 50) and lastBuild (time of the newest artifact, null when there are none). After a plugin update every document is queued once, so queue counts all of them until the rebuild ends; a document that cannot be rebuilt (invalid, or blocking quality issues on a published post) keeps its previous HTML and appears in stale or failed.

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-status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 is covered, yet the description adds real behavioral context: it explains that a plugin update queues every document until rebuild completes, that unreconstructable documents keep their previous HTML, and that edge values occur (stale capped at 50, lastBuild null when no artifacts). Some jargon ('artifact store driver', 'quality issues') is left undefined, keeping it below a 5.

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?

The content is dense and every clause carries information, but it is delivered as one long parenthetical-laden sentence with no purpose statement front-loaded, making it slow for an agent to extract the primary intent. A short leading sentence such as 'Reports Nucleo health and rebuild state' would improve scanability without adding length.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of documenting return values, and it enumerates nearly every returned key plus the meaning of stale, failed, queue and a null lastBuild. Only the nested shape of the failed entries (attempts, error) is left slightly underspecified, which is a minor gap for a read-only status tool.

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 no parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline for zero-parameter tools applies. The description appropriately spends its words on returned data instead of parameter meaning, which fits this shape.

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?

Although there is no explicit verb sentence, the description enumerates concrete resources (versions, artifact store driver, document counts, artifacts, queue, failed, stale, lastBuild), so an agent can tell this is a system/diagnostics snapshot tool rather than a mutation or content tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as nucleo-guide or nucleo-audit-list, so it stops 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 Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance: no statement like 'call this to check rebuild health' and no named alternative or exclusion. The second paragraph explains data semantics rather than when an agent should invoke the tool versus another sibling.

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