wpscan-mcp

wpscan_core_lookup

Check WordPress core vulnerabilities via the WPScan API. Optionally filter by version to identify known security issues.

Instructions

Lookup WordPress core vulnerabilities in the WPScan API (optionally filter by version).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "version": "<version>"
    },
    "name": "wpscan_core_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`version`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, return behavior, or error conditions. The description only states the lookup purpose and optional filter, leaving significant gaps for safe invocation.

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?

The description is a single sentence that directly conveys the purpose and optional parameter. It is efficiently front-loaded with no superfluous information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema, no annotations, and one parameter with 0% coverage, the description lacks details on return values, error handling, version format, and default behavior. It is insufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions an optional version filter but does not clarify the expected format (e.g., WordPress version string), constraints, or behavior when omitted. The additive value is minimal.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly uses the verb 'lookup' and specifies the resource as 'WordPress core vulnerabilities in the WPScan API'. It also mentions the optional version filter, which differentiates from sibling tools that target plugins, themes, or general vulnerabilities.

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?

The description implies usage for core vulnerabilities but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like wpscan_plugin_lookup or wpscan_theme_lookup. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server