Skip to main content
Glama
ArsNovaSingers

ars-nova-wordpress-mcp

Official

Update ACF Options Page Fields

wp_update_acf_options
Idempotent

Update one or more fields on an ACF Options page via the WordPress REST API. Only specified fields are changed, enabling safe incremental edits without affecting omitted data.

Instructions

Write one or more fields to an ACF Options page on arsnovasingers.org.

Requires the "ACF to REST API" plugin (airesvsg) to be installed and active. Posts to /wp-json/acf/v3/options/{option_page} with body { fields: {...} }.

ONLY the field names you include in 'fields' are modified — omitted fields are untouched. This is safe for incremental edits to the footer, alert bar, etc., without needing to re-send the entire Options page.

For repeater fields (e.g. footer_sponsors, alert_bar), you must send the COMPLETE new array — repeaters are replaced wholesale, not merged. Read first with wp_get_acf_options to get the current array, modify it locally, then send back.

Args:

  • option_page (string): Options page slug. Default 'options'.

  • fields (object): { field_name: new_value, ... }. Values: strings (HTML for WYSIWYG, plain text), numbers, booleans, arrays (full replacement for repeaters), or nested objects (for groups).

  • response_format (enum): markdown | json. Default 'markdown'.

Returns: Result of the write including the updated fields and any plugin-returned metadata.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsYesObject of field_name -> new_value pairs. Values can be strings (HTML for WYSIWYG/text fields), numbers, booleans, arrays (for repeaters), or nested objects (for groups). Only the fields you include are changed; omitted fields are untouched. Example: { "column_copy_2": "<p><a href='/x'>X</a></p>" }
option_pageNoACF Options page slug. Default 'options'. Only [a-zA-Z0-9_-] allowed.options
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' for human-readable, 'json' for machine-readable.markdown
Behavior5/5

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

The description reveals that omitted fields are untouched, repeater fields are replaced wholesale, and it identifies the exact REST endpoint. These details go beyond the annotations, which only indicate readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true, and there is no contradiction.

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?

The description is moderately long but well-structured, with a clear purpose sentence, behavior notes, and an Args summary. Every section earns its place, though the Args list partially duplicates 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?

The description covers prerequisites, partial-update behavior, repeater handling, parameters, and the return value (since no output schema exists). It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly in most cases.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds the important 'full replacement for repeaters' nuance in its Args section, adding a bit more meaning than the schema alone.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Write one or more fields to an ACF Options page.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling read tool wp_get_acf_options by framing this as a write operation and even references that read tool for prerequisite behavior.

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 explicitly says incremental edits are safe and instructs to 'Read first with wp_get_acf_options' for repeaters, naming the alternative. It also gives a prerequisite about the ACF to REST API plugin, but does not provide an explicit 'when not to use' beyond the repeater caveat.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ArsNovaSingers/ars-nova-wordpress-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server