Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Frontman for WordPress

by io.github.frontman-ai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

wp_restore_custom_css_revision

Destructive

Restores one plain Additional CSS revision after confirmation and best-effort current-state conflict detection. Never retry automatically after a lost response.

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>",
      "stylesheet": "<stylesheet>",
      "parent_post_id": "<parent_post_id>",
      "revision_id": "<revision_id>",
      "expected_current_sha256": "<expected_current_sha256>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "wp_restore_custom_css_revision"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmYesMust be true after the user approves restoring persistent site CSS.
site_idYesThe connected site's id returned by list_sites. Call list_sites first; do not use a URL or WordPress post ID.
stylesheetYesExpected active theme stylesheet slug from wp_get_custom_css.
revision_idYesSelected revision ID from wp_list_custom_css_revisions.
parent_post_idYesExpected current Custom CSS post ID from wp_get_custom_css.
expected_current_sha256YesCurrent persisted_css_sha256 from wp_get_custom_css. This is best-effort conflict detection, not an atomic lock.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description still adds real value beyond that: a mandatory confirmation gate, the fact that conflict detection is only best-effort, and the explicit instruction never to retry after a lost response — a non-idempotency caveat an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing, with the mutation and its precondition front-loaded before the retry warning. No restatement of the name or filler.

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?

For a six-required-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation gate, the weak-conflict-detection caveat, and the retry hazard. It omits what the agent should expect when conflict detection trips (hard failure vs. proceeding) and what is returned on success, which are minor gaps given the fully documented schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in detail, including the pattern constraint and the conflict-detection caveat on expected_current_sha256. The description only echoes the confirmation concept. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the burden.

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+resource: 'Restores one plain Additional CSS revision.' The word 'revision' and 'Additional CSS' distinguish it from wp_update_custom_css and wp_get_custom_css_revision without naming them. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the closest sibling, wp_elementor_restore_rollback.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'after confirmation' establishes a precondition, and the schema-backed requirements (call list_sites, pull sha256 and revision_id from the getters) define the workflow. Nothing tells the agent when to restore a revision versus updating CSS directly, and no alternatives are named.

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 toolsInspect
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.

Resources