wpscan-mcp

wpscan_theme_lookup

Identify security vulnerabilities in a WordPress theme by looking it up in the WPScan API with the theme slug and optional version.

Instructions

Lookup a WordPress theme in the WPScan API (by slug; optionally include a 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": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "wpscan_theme_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes
`version`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation (lookup) but lacks details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single efficient sentence (16 words) with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the lookup returns (e.g., vulnerability info, version details) or provide usage guidance, which are needed for full understanding.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description adds basic meaning: 'by slug; optionally include a version' covers the two parameters partially. With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides minimal value but does not explain format or constraints beyond minLength.

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 states the verb 'Lookup' and the resource 'WordPress theme' using the WPScan API by slug, optionally with a version. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like wpscan_core_lookup and wpscan_plugin_lookup.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. However, the name and sibling context imply it is for theme-specific lookups, so usage is somewhat clear but not fully explicit.

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

Deploy Server