Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

WordPress: Wp site identity set

wordpress_specialist_wp_site_identity_set
Destructive

Updates WordPress site identity by setting any subset of title, tagline, site icon, or custom logo while leaving omitted fields unchanged; validates attachment IDs against the media library.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Update site identity. Pass any subset of title / tagline / site_icon_id / custom_logo_id (omitted keys are left untouched). Attachment ids are validated by the companion against WP's media library — invalid ids return invalid_attachment. Requires Airano MCP Bridge v2.16.0+ and manage_options. If Rank Math is active, call wp_rank_math_sync_identity after changing the title so the schema (JSON-LD) uses the new name.

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>"
    },
    "name": "wordpress_specialist_wp_site_identity_set"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
titleNo
taglineNo
site_icon_idNo
custom_logo_idNo

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?

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing partial-update semantics ('omitted keys are left untouched'), the validation error surface ('invalid_attachment' for bad media ids), and the permission requirement — none of which appear in the structured fields. What is missing is any statement about the effect on the existing site state or what a successful call returns, which matters for a destructiveHint=true mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the field list, then prerequisites and follow-up in descending priority — nothing is padding. The '[UNIFIED]' tag adds no information for the caller and slightly clutters the opening.

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 write tool with no output schema, the definition covers auth, versioning, validation errors, partial-update semantics, and a required follow-up sync. The remaining gap is that no success behavior or response shape is described, so the agent cannot anticipate what it will receive back.

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 carries the full burden and largely meets it: it maps each optional parameter to its purpose, explains attachment ids are validated against WP's media library, and states that null/omitted values are left untouched. Only the required 'site' parameter is left uncharacterized, which is a minor gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (update site identity) and enumerates the exact fields it touches (title, tagline, site_icon_id, custom_logo_id). This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling wp_site_identity_get without requiring the reader to open either schema.

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?

Provides concrete prerequisites (Airano MCP Bridge v2.16.0+, manage_options capability) and a conditional follow-up step: call wp_rank_math_sync_identity after changing the title. It does not state when not to use this tool versus related setters, but the positive conditions and named follow-up alternative are clear.

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