Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wordpress-mcp

wordpress-mcp

by cvrt-jh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

fulfillment_update_check

Force an immediate WordPress plugin update check for a site, bypassing throttling, and report whether a newer version is available.

Instructions

Force an immediate plugin-update check (bypassing PUC's throttle) and report whether a newer version is available. Throttled to about once per 30s.

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": "fulfillment_update_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYesSite id (see list_sites)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.4.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that it bypasses PUC's throttle and is rate-limited to about once per 30 seconds, but it does not address permissions, whether any state is modified, or what a response contains.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences are front-loaded with the action and outcome, followed by the critical rate-limit constraint. Every sentence earns its place with 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 single-parameter check tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior, outcome, and rate limit. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying whether the check is read-only or by naming related alternatives.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single site parameter is already documented in the schema as a site id referencing list_sites. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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 and resource: force an immediate plugin-update check and report whether a newer version is available. It is clearer than a tautology and mentions the PUC throttle, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling update-check tools such as mcp_check_updates.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: use it when an immediate, throttled update check is needed. It does not name alternatives or say when not to use it versus mcp_check_updates or update-related siblings.

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