local-wp-mcp

Read Site File

read_site_file

Read-only

Read any text or code file from a Local by Flywheel WordPress site directory using a relative path. Handles path validation and enforces a 512KB size limit.

Instructions

Read a file from the Local by Flywheel site directory. Path is relative to the site root (e.g., "app/public/wp-config.php"). Files are limited to 512KB. All paths are validated against the site directory.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "read_site_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Relative path from site root (e.g., "app/public/wp-content/themes/mytheme/style.css")
`site`	No	Site name, ID, or domain. Uses env var if not specified.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable constraints beyond annotations: 512KB file size limit and path validation against the site directory, which inform potential failure modes. No contradictions.

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 two sentences: first states the purpose, second conveys constraints. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple read operation with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects: path semantics, size cap, and validation. Siblings are clearly distinct, so no additional context is needed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The description reinforces the relative path semantics with a concrete example ('app/public/wp-config.php') and adds practical constraints (size limit), providing value beyond the schema alone.

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 uses the specific verb 'read' with a clear resource ('a file from the Local by Flywheel site directory') and provides a concrete path example. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like write_site_file, list_site_directory, and search_site_files.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives practical usage context: path is relative to site root, files limited to 512KB, and paths are validated. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling names make the intended use obvious. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so not a 5.

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

Deploy Server