wp_settings_setUpdate REST-exposed WordPress settings such as site title, front page, posts per page, and timezone. For arbitrary options, use PHP execution or SQL query tools instead.
Update REST-exposed settings. Arbitrary options need wp_php_run or wp_db_query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| page_on_front | No | ||
| show_on_front | No | ||
| page_for_posts | No | ||
| posts_per_page | No | ||
| timezone_string | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety/idempotency is covered structurally. The description adds the meaningful scope constraint that only REST-exposed settings can be touched, but says nothing about required capabilities, what happens to omitted settings, or whether updates are partial or full replacement.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler. The primary action leads, and the fallback routing follows immediately after the scoping clause that motivates it.
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?
A mutation tool with 7 fully undocumented parameters, no output schema, and only partial annotation coverage. The description should at least indicate which settings class it targets or what a successful update returns; as written, an agent cannot confidently populate the body from the definition alone.
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 description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, and the description names none of them. 'REST-exposed settings' only indirectly implies the WordPress settings endpoint fields; an agent gets no help distinguishing title/description/page_on_front/show_on_front from the other options, nor any hint about the enum values or integer expectations.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Update REST-exposed settings') and scopes it precisely to settings reachable through the REST API, which separates it from the sibling wp_settings_get and from arbitrary option manipulation. It is clear what the tool does, though it stops short of naming wp_settings_get explicitly as its read counterpart.
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 second sentence gives a real routing rule: arbitrary/non-REST options must go through wp_php_run or wp_db_query instead. That is an explicit alternative with a condition, not just implied usage. It lacks only a stated 'use wp_settings_get first' or prerequisite/permission guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.