wordpress_write_plugin_fileWrite or modify plugin files with automatic backup creation. Specify plugin, file path, and content to update WordPress plugin files safely.
Write or modify a file in a plugin (automatically creates backup)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plugin | Yes | ||
| filePath | Yes | ||
| content | 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?
The description discloses automatic backup creation, which is a key behavioral trait and partially mitigates the destructive nature of file writes. However, it does not mention whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, or what the return value looks like. With no annotations, more detail would be expected for a mutation tool.
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 sentence that immediately states the core action and a critical safety behavior. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no superfluous information. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool is relatively simple (3 parameters, no output schema), and the description covers the primary purpose and a key safety feature. However, it omits important context such as whether the file path is relative to the plugin directory, error behavior, or permission requirements. The backup mention adds some completeness, but the lack of annotations and output schema leaves gaps.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (plugin, filePath, content). While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning, such as path formats, content encoding, or whether the plugin name is a slug or directory. This falls short of compensating 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 clearly states the action ('Write or modify') and the specific resource ('a file in a plugin'), which distinguishes it from the generic 'wordpress_write_file' and other sibling file tools. It also adds a valuable detail about automatic backup, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description implies usage for plugin file modifications via the phrase 'in a plugin', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wordpress_write_file' or 'wordpress_write_theme_file'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.