The miniOrange MCP Server Plugin is a secure WordPress MCP Server that exposes your WordPress site as an MCP endpoint while adding enterprise-grade security, policy enforcement, and complete audit logging.
Unlike a basic MCP server that simply connects AI tools to WordPress, this plugin verifies every AI request before it reaches your website.
Every request is authenticated, checked against security policies, logged, and can even require human approval before execution.
List what this WordPress site can do. ALWAYS call this first to get the exact ability_name before execute_ability. Optionally filter with query (keyword) or category. Returns each ability's name, a one-line description, and key parameters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Keyword filter, e.g. "post", "order". | |
| category | No | Category/group slug to filter by. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | No | |
| count | No | |
| error | No | |
| success | Yes | |
| abilities | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond those annotations by stating that the tool returns each ability's name, a one-line description, and key parameters, which is essential for subsequent execution.
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?
The description is two tightly written sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and the critical usage instruction, then covers filters and return content efficiently.
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?
This is a simple, read-only discovery tool with two optional parameters and an output schema. The description covers what it lists, how it should be used relative to execute_ability, how to filter, and what each result contains. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both optional parameters. The description reinforces that they are filters and that they are optional, but it does not add meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('what this WordPress site can do'), and explicitly positions the tool as the source for obtaining the exact ability_name needed before execute_ability. This differentiates it from its sibling execute_ability, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 description gives explicit usage guidance: 'ALWAYS call this first to get the exact ability_name before execute_ability.' It also notes optional filtering by query or category. However, it does not address when to use get_ability_info instead, so the guidance is strong but not fully exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run one ability on the site. Pass the exact ability_name from discover_abilities and its parameters (shaped by that ability's input schema; use {} if it takes none). Returns {success, data} or {success:false, error}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parameters | Yes | Arguments for the ability; {} if none. | |
| ability_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | The result returned by the executed ability. |
| error | No | |
| success | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate destructive, non-read-only, non-idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the success/error return shape and the need to source ability_name from discover_abilities. It does not elaborate on side effects, but annotations cover the main safety signal.
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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by precise parameter instructions and a compact return-format note. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The description is largely complete for a dynamic execution tool: it names the discovery prerequisite, defines parameter shaping, and gives the return contract. It does not explicitly warn about arbitrary or destructive abilities, but the annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, and the open-world nature is reinforced by referencing discover_abilities.
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?
Schema coverage is only 50% because ability_name lacks a description. The tool description compensates fully by explaining that ability_name must come from discover_abilities and that parameters must follow that ability's own input schema, including the {} convention for no-argument abilities.
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?
The description clearly states 'Run one ability on the site', identifying both the action and the resource being acted on. It also references discover_abilities, which helps distinguish this execution tool from the discovery and info siblings.
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 description gives concrete usage guidance: pass the exact ability_name from discover_abilities and shape parameters according to that ability's input schema, using {} when none are needed. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use this tool, but the execution vs. discovery/info distinction is strongly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the full input schema and details for a single ability, when discover_abilities isn't enough. Pass the exact ability_name from discover_abilities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ability_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| error | No | |
| ability | No | |
| success | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive traits; the description adds context beyond them by specifying that the tool returns a full input schema and details for a single ability. It does not contradict annotations and gives a clearer picture of what the call reveals.
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?
Two sentences contain the purpose, the trigger condition, the source of the argument, and the exact value to pass. There is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.
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?
For a single-parameter read-only introspection tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers when to use it, what to pass, and what it returns, alongside sibling context and annotations that carry the safety profile.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the semantic weight. It does so by explaining that ability_name must be the exact value obtained from discover_abilities, which is more meaningful than the raw schema's bare string type.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Get the full input schema and details for a single ability') and immediately differentiates from the sibling discover_abilities by scoping to a single ability. It also tells the agent this is the more detailed fallback, so intent is unambiguous.
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 description explicitly names the alternative discover_abilities and gives the condition for choosing this tool ('when discover_abilities isn't enough'). It also instructs the caller to pass the exact ability_name from discover_abilities, which is a concrete prerequisite.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
discover_abilitiesexecute_abilityget_ability_infoClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: discover lists abilities, execute runs one, and get_ability_info provides detailed schema. The descriptions explicitly guide when to use each, so there is no practical ambiguity.
All tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case pattern: discover_abilities, execute_ability, get_ability_info. The naming is predictable and consistent across the set.
Three tools is appropriate for this server's design, since WordPress capabilities are exposed dynamically as abilities rather than as individual static tools. Each tool earns its place: discovery, schema lookup, and execution.
The tool surface fully covers the intended workflow: discover available abilities, inspect their schemas when needed, and execute them. There are no obvious missing operations for the server's stated purpose as a generic WordPress ability gateway.