Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wp_criu

wp_criu

by criustudio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

write_file

Write file content to a specified path within a WordPress site's directory, with support for text or base64 encoding and optional backup.

Instructions

Escribe un archivo dentro del ABSPATH del sitio.

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>",
      "path": "<path>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "write_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYessite_id, site_label o base_url del sitio.
pathYes
contentYes
encodingNotext
backupNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action and location, but fails to disclose key behaviors like overwrite behavior, directory creation, permissions, or error handling. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is almost too brief, sacrificing necessary details for conciseness. Still, it is efficiently structured.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and is a write operation, the description is completely inadequate. It omits return values, side effects, prerequisites, and error states, leaving the agent with minimal context for correct usage.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 20%, yet the tool description adds no additional meaning to any parameter. The description does not explain the 'site', 'path', 'content', 'encoding', or 'backup' parameters beyond what is in the schema, failing to compensate for low coverage.

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 clearly states the tool writes a file within the site's ABSPATH, specifying the action (write), resource (file), and location constraint. This distinguishes it from sibling read_file and other site tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when-not-to-use or provide any usage context, leaving the agent without decision support.

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