Woodpresser

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Activate a theme

wp_theme_activate

Destructive

Switch the active WordPress theme by providing its stylesheet slug. Changing themes on a live site is high-impact; test on a staging copy first.

Instructions

Switch the active theme. Changing themes on a live site is high-impact; prefer a staging copy.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "stylesheet": "<stylesheet>"
    },
    "name": "wp_theme_activate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No	Must be "activate"
`stylesheet`	Yes	Theme directory slug

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the change is 'high-impact' and should be staged first. It doesn't mention reversibility or auth requirements, keeping it below 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the risk warning follows immediately, which is exactly the right ordering for a destructive operation.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering the destructive profile, the description supplies the one thing structured fields can't: the operational risk advisory. Nothing critical is missing, though naming the inspect-first sibling would have made it fully complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (stylesheet slug, confirm='activate') are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Switch the active theme.' An agent immediately knows this mutates the site's active theme, distinguishing it from read-oriented siblings like wp_themes_list. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies a caution condition ('on a live site... prefer a staging copy') but never states when to call this tool versus the alternatives (e.g., wp_themes_list to inspect first, or wp_plugin_action for plugin counterparts). Usage is implied through the risk warning rather than spelled out.

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