Handsome Hosting

Manage a WordPress theme

wp_theme

Destructive

Install (from the WordPress.org directory), activate or update one theme of a live WordPress site by its slug (the folder name). Runs on the call; switching away from a theme leaves it installed. Refusals: invalid-argument, not-live, migration-open, deploy-open, busy, failed.

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": {
      "serviceId": "<serviceId>",
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "wp_theme"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	the plugin or theme folder name, for example contact-form-7
`action`	Yes
`serviceId`	Yes	the id of a service on this account

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`error`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / serviceId / description

Previous value: -"the service id from list_services"New value: +"the id of a service on this account"

changedInput schema / properties / slug / description

Previous value: -"the plugin or theme slug as wp_status lists it, for example contact-form-7"New value: +"the plugin or theme folder name, for example contact-form-7"

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag a destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true); the description adds real context beyond that: the source of installs is constrained to the WordPress.org directory, activation takes effect immediately, and switching away leaves the previous theme installed. The named refusal codes are useful pre-call expectations. It does not state permission/authorization requirements or whether update can be rolled back.

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?

Two dense sentences plus a compact refusal list — no filler, and the core verb/resource is front-loaded. The trailing 'Refusals:' clause is terse code-style jargon but still earns its place by preempting failures.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the three actions, side effects, and failure modes for a three-parameter mutation tool. Remaining gap is serviceId semantics and permission prerequisites, which are minor against the annotations and schema already in place.

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?

Schema coverage is 67% and the description corroborates slug (folder name) and expands the action enum with the source and immediacy semantics of each value. The third required parameter, serviceId, is described nowhere in the description. At this coverage baseline 3 is appropriate with only marginal added meaning.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb set (install/activate/update) and a precise resource (one theme of a live WordPress site), plus the addressing key (slug = folder name). It implicitly separates itself from wp_plugin by naming the resource type, but never names the plugin sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the theme-vs-plugin boundary.

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?

It states the install source (WordPress.org directory only), that operations run synchronously on the call, and enumerates refusal conditions (not-live, migration-open, deploy-open, busy), which tell the agent when a call will legitimately fail. It does not provide an explicit alternative — e.g. use wp_upload_extension for a non-directory theme — leaving the exclusion path implicit.

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

All Handsome Hosting tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?