Skip to main content
Glama
PCWProps

Pressable MCP Server

by PCWProps
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

pressable_enable_site

Activate a WordPress site on Pressable by providing its ID or name to restore functionality and access.

Instructions

Enable a specific site.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe site ID or name

Implementation Reference

  • tools/sites.js:89-91 (handler)
    The handler for the 'pressable_enable_site' tool that calls the API to enable the site.
    handler: async (args) => {
    return await api.post(`/sites/${args.id}/enable`);
}
  • tools/sites.js:82-88 (schema)
    The input schema definition for 'pressable_enable_site'.
    inputSchema: {
    type: 'object',
    properties: {
        id: { type: 'string', description: 'The site ID or name' }
    },
    required: ['id']
},
  • tools/sites.js:80-81 (registration)
    The registration of the 'pressable_enable_site' tool within the tools list.
    name: 'pressable_enable_site',
description: 'Enable a specific site.',

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description lacks behavioral disclosure beyond the bare 'Enable' action. With no annotations, it should explain consequences (e.g., site becoming accessible), permissions required, or reversibility, but none are provided.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly under-structured for a tool with only one parameter.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify operational effects, what responses to expect, or any prerequisites, leaving too much unstated.

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?

The input schema fully describes the 'id' parameter as 'The site ID or name', providing complete coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Enable' with resource 'site', clearly stating the operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pressable_disable_site and pressable_get_site by the unique action of enabling.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for re-enabling a previously disabled site, nor does it compare with pressable_disable_site or other site management tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools