wordpress_write_fileWrite or create files on your WordPress site with security validation and optional backup, ensuring safe file modifications.
Write or create file with security validation and optional backup
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| createBackup | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions 'security validation' and 'optional backup,' which add useful behavioral context, but it omits details such as overwrite behavior, permission requirements, path constraints, and backup specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, efficiently conveying the core action and key features.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema or annotations exist, so the description needs to explain behavior and return values. It does not mention what the tool returns, error conditions, or backup behavior in detail, leaving significant gaps for a write operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only hints at 'optional backup' which maps to createBackup. It does not elaborate on path or content semantics, formats, constraints, or defaults, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the action 'Write or create' with the resource 'file', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from write_theme_file or write_plugin_file, but the generic scope is evident from the name and sibling context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like write_theme_file or write_plugin_file. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context cues for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.