WP Update Radar

wp_update_radar_check_many

Idempotent

Answers: which of this site's plugin updates are risky right now? Prefer this over the single check whenever there is more than one plugin to look at — a whole site's plugin list costs one call here instead of one call each. Same five verdicts as the single check (known-bad, wait, update-now, too-new, insufficient-data), per item and independent: a plugin that is not indexed reports its own error and the rest still answer. Returns a count of each verdict, so the risky ones can be found without reading every row. Up to 25 plugins per call; more than that is reported, not silently cut. insufficient-data means this service does not know, which is not the same as safe. Not a security advisory and not a CVE lookup: it reports what other site owners are saying, which is a different question from whether a release is vulnerable. wordpress.org plugins only — premium plugins have no public forum to read, and themes are out of scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`plugins`	Yes	The plugins and the exact versions in use

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`counts`	Yes	verdict -> count, plus `error` for items that could not be judged
`results`	Yes
`skipped`	Yes
`examined`	Yes	how many were actually judged, after the per-call cap
`requested`	Yes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description adds critical context: per-item independence on errors, the meaning of insufficient-data, count of verdicts, and explicit disclaimers about not being a security advisory or CVE lookup. This directly shapes correct interpretation of results. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is long but every sentence carries a distinct operational fact—verdicts, cost, partial failures, limits, semantics, exclusions—and the most decision-relevant question is front-loaded. No filler or repeated schema content.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the output schema and detailed annotations, the description covers all necessary context: when to choose it, what it returns conceptually, how it handles edge cases, and what it is not. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 adds meaningful behavior around the single plugins parameter: errors are isolated per plugin, over-limit input is reported rather than truncated, and each entry needs the exact version in use. This goes beyond the schema's structural definitions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a precise question ('which of this site's plugin updates are risky right now?') and explicitly contrasts with the single check, stating the batching advantage. The resource (many plugins vs one) and verb (check/answer risk) are unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It tells the agent to prefer this tool whenever more than one plugin must be evaluated, and explains why (one call instead of one call each). It also defines the scope (wordpress.org plugins only, themes/premium out of scope) and the 25-plugin limit with its behavior.

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

All WP Update Radar tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools are cleanly separated by scope: one checks a single named plugin/version, the other checks up to 25 plugins in a batch. Their descriptions reinforce the distinction, including guidance to prefer the batch tool when multiple plugins are involved.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools share the same wp_update_radar_check prefix, with a _many suffix clearly distinguishing the batch variant. The naming is consistent, predictable, and easy to map to behavior.

Tool Count3/5

At two tools, the server is just under the typical well-scoped range. The single/batch split is sensible, but the surface is minimal and offers little beyond those two entry points.

Completeness4/5

For its stated purpose—checking WordPress.org plugin update risk—the two operations cover the essential single-query and whole-site batch workflows. A minor gap is that the batch response returns verdict counts rather than thread details, but per-plugin follow-up is possible.

Resources

Need Help?