Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Frontman for WordPress

by io.github.frontman-ai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

wp_update_option

Destructive

Updates only allowlisted core WordPress options. Arbitrary plugin-private options are not supported.

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>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "wp_update_option"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe option name to update.
valueYesThe new value for the option. Pass numbers and booleans as strings (e.g. "10", "true").
site_idYesThe connected site's id returned by list_sites. Call list_sites first; do not use a URL or WordPress post ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare this as a destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds only the allowlist scope, which is already expressed by the schema enum, and says nothing about permissions, risk of changing critical options like siteurl, or what happens on success or failure.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core scope constraint and no unnecessary wording. Every sentence contributes directly to limiting misuse.

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?

The schema and annotations cover the mechanics and safety profile reasonably well, but with no output schema the description should say something about return values or the effect of a destructive update. As written it is minimally adequate but leaves notable gaps around consequences and response behavior.

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 the schema fully documents site_id, name, and value. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's own enum and formatting guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it updates allowlisted core WordPress options. It also distinguishes itself from arbitrary plugin-private options, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools such as wp_update_customizer_setting or wc_update_setting_option.

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?

It gives a negative usage constraint by saying plugin-private options are not supported, which implies the tool should only be used for the listed core options. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention prerequisites beyond what the schema already provides.

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