Frontman for WordPress

wp_create_widget

Destructive

Creates a text, custom_html, or block widget in a sidebar. Text widgets accept title/text strings and filter/visual booleans; custom_html accepts title/content strings; block requires a content string containing complete block markup. HTML follows WordPress permissions. Read back and verify the rendered page.

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": {
      "site_id": "<site_id>",
      "sidebar_id": "<sidebar_id>",
      "widget_base": "<widget_base>",
      "settings": "<settings>"
    },
    "name": "wp_create_widget"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`site_id`	Yes	The connected site's id returned by list_sites. Call list_sites first; do not use a URL or WordPress post ID.
`position`	No	Optional 1-based insertion position.
`settings`	Yes	JSON-encoded object of widget settings.
`sidebar_id`	Yes	The sidebar/widget area ID.
`widget_base`	Yes	The widget base ID: text, custom_html, or block.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the write, destructive, open-world, non-idempotent profile, and the description adds real context on top: HTML is subject to WordPress capability filtering and the change should be verified by reading back the rendered page. It does not explain why a create is flagged destructive (e.g. position displacement or settings overwrite) or what is returned, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and the widget variants, then the payload rules, then the verification step; each sentence carries distinct information. 'HTML follows WordPress permissions' is terse to the point of ambiguity, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 4-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers payload shapes, the auth caveat, and a verification workflow. It still leaves gaps on what happens to existing widgets at the insertion point, whether retrying is safe given non-idempotency, and what a successful response contains — the read-back advice partially compensates for the last one.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by spelling out the settings payload shape per widget_base (title/text with filter/visual booleans, title/content for custom_html, full block markup for block) — information the schema does not carry. It adds nothing about position or sidebar_id beyond the schema fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a ... widget in a sidebar') plus the three supported widget bases, so the agent knows exactly what gets created. It does not explicitly contrast with wp_update_widget or wp_read_widget, but the create-vs-modify distinction is inherent in the verb.

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 per-type settings guidance implicitly tells the agent which widget_base to pick for a given payload, and 'Read back and verify the rendered page' prescribes a post-call step. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement or routing to wp_update_widget for existing widgets.

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

All Frontman for WordPress tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.