Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

WordPress: Wp permalinks set

wordpress_specialist_wp_permalinks_set
Destructive

Update the WordPress permalink structure and flush rewrite rules so new URLs take effect immediately; optionally set custom category and tag base prefixes.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Update the permalink structure. Common safe values: /%postname%/, /%year%/%monthnum%/%postname%/, /%category%/%postname%/. Pass an empty string for plain permalinks. The companion writes the option then calls flush_rewrite_rules() so the new structure takes effect immediately. Optional category_base / tag_base override the default category / tag prefixes. Requires Airano MCP Bridge v2.16.0+ and manage_options.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "structure": "<structure>"
    },
    "name": "wordpress_specialist_wp_permalinks_set"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
tag_baseNo
structureYes
category_baseNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotated destructiveHint/readOnlyHint flags, the description discloses the concrete side effect (writes the option then calls flush_rewrite_rules() so the change is immediate) and the permission requirement. That is real added context for a mutation tool. It stops short of warning that existing URLs will change/break, which is the main risk an agent should weigh before invoking a destructive permalink change.

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 content is front-loaded (action, then allowed values, then side effect, then prerequisites) and every sentence carries useful information. The leading "[UNIFIED]" tag is noise, and the prose is slightly dense, but there is no filler.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only terse annotations, the description covers action, value formats, side effects, and prerequisites. The remaining gaps are the undefined `site` parameter and the absence of any recovery/rollback note for a destructive, non-idempotent-annotated operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: structure is explained with format templates and the empty-string edge case, and category_base/tag_base are explained as overrides of the default category/tag prefixes. Only the required `site` parameter is left entirely undefined.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource ("Update the permalink structure") and immediately grounds it with concrete format examples, making it unmistakable against the sibling wordpress_specialist_wp_permalinks_get. An agent knows exactly what state this tool changes.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It supplies the practical selection guidance an agent needs for the main parameter: three common safe values plus "Pass an empty string for plain permalinks," and it states the manage_options prerequisite and bridge version floor. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the get/set pairing makes the alternative self-evident.

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