Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wordpress-mcp

wordpress-mcp

by cvrt-jh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

legal_add_section

Append a section to a legal document in WordPress and return the resolved slug for shortcode addressing.

Instructions

Append a section to a legal document. Returns the resolved slug, which is what shortcodes address.

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>",
      "doc": "<doc>",
      "heading": "<heading>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "legal_add_section"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
docYesDocument type
bodyYesHTML body
siteYesSite id (see list_sites)
slugNo
levelNo2 or 3, default 2
headingYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
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. It does disclose that the call returns a resolved slug for shortcode addressing, but says nothing about permissions, whether changes are reversible, whether 'body' is sanitized, or what happens if the section already exists.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the return-contract second; nothing is wasted. It is efficient, though very brief for a 6-parameter mutation tool.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only partial schema coverage, this description is too thin. It omits the invocation context an agent needs (document must exist, HTML body format, slug behavior) and relies on the name alone.

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 67% (slug and heading lack descriptions) and the description adds no parameter meaning at all - it never mentions site, doc, heading, body, slug, or level. With moderate coverage and zero compensating detail, this is weak.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Append a section to a legal document'), which clearly separates it from the update/delete section siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this versus legal_update_section or legal_delete_section, nor any prerequisites (e.g. does the document need to exist first). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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