Retrieve a WordPress post's revision history to review changes, dates, and authors for content management and auditing.
Retrieves the revision history for a specific post, including details about changes, dates, and authors for content management and auditing purposes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | No | The ID of the WordPress site to target (from mcp-wordpress.config.json). Required if multiple sites are configured. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.9.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what the response contains (changes, dates, authors) and implies a read-only operation via 'Retrieves,' but says nothing about permissions, pagination, result limits, or whether revisions are returned in full. Partial disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first. The trailing 'for content management and auditing purposes' is mild filler that doesn't earn its place, but overall the structure is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A simple read-only tool with one schema-documented parameter and no output schema. The description covers the resource, the return contents, and the purpose, which is close to adequate for this complexity, though it omits pagination/scope behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (site), and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no meaning about the site parameter or how multi-site targeting behaves. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves the revision history for a specific post.' The noun 'post' distinguishes it from wp_get_page_revisions, but the description never explicitly acknowledges that sibling to sharpen the boundary. Clear purpose, no explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The trailing clause 'for content management and auditing purposes' implies a usage context but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives to consider (e.g. wp_get_page_revisions for pages). Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.