Import Advanced Custom Fields groups from JSON exports into WordPress, restoring custom field definitions for site content.
Import ACF field groups from JSON export format
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| groups | Yes | Array of ACF field group JSON objects |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Input schema / properties / siteAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "groups"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "groups"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden and fails to. It is silent on whether imported groups overwrite existing groups with matching keys, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on malformed JSON, and what permissions are required — all critical for a bulk write tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly the cause of the missing behavioral detail rather than a virtue of disciplined writing.
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?
For a two-parameter bulk import mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits conflict/overwrite semantics, error behavior, and what the caller gets back, leaving the agent unable to predict the effect of the call.
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 100%, so both 'site' and 'groups' are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's phrase 'JSON export format' loosely ties to the 'groups' array but adds no structural detail (e.g., expected top-level keys) beyond the schema.
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 (Import) and resource (ACF field groups) plus the accepted input format (JSON export format). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related acf_create_field_group or acf_update_field_group siblings, so an agent must infer that this is the bulk/JSON route rather than the single-definition route.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives. It never says to prefer this over acf_create_field_group when migrating a full export, nor does it state that a site must be selected first (that hint only exists in the schema description).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.