Skip to main content
Glama

acf_update_field_group

Update an existing ACF field group on a WordPress site, including title, fields, location rules, and display settings. Use it to revise ACF group configuration without recreating it.

Instructions

Update an existing ACF field group

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesField group key
siteYesSite id (see list_sites)
styleNo
titleNoNew title
activeNo
fieldsNoUpdated field definitions (replaces all fields)
locationNoUpdated location rules
positionNo
hide_on_screenNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / site
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "key"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "site",
      +  "key"
      +]
  2. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it adds nothing beyond restating the name. It does not disclose that updating fields replaces all existing field definitions (that detail lives only in the schema), nor permissions, reversibility, or side effects for a 9-parameter mutation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing. Adequate as a label, thin as documentation.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 56% schema coverage, the description is far too sparse. An agent lacks the destructive-replace semantics, prerequisite site/key context, and field-level guidance needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is only 56% across 9 parameters, so the description should compensate by clarifying the under-documented ones (style, active, position, hide_on_screen). It adds zero parameter meaning beyond the schema, leaving several fields unexplained.

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?

The description states a specific verb (update) and resource (ACF field group), which lets an agent distinguish it from acf_create_field_group, acf_delete_field_group, acf_get_field_group, and acf_list_field_groups. It is clear but offers no additional scoping or sibling-specific nuance beyond the verb.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as acf_create_field_group for new groups or acf_update_post_fields for values. Usage is only implied by the word 'existing'.

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