Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wordpress-mcp

wordpress-mcp

by cvrt-jh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

legal_put_theme

Configure a WordPress site's consent banner theme preset or override individual --cvrt-consent-* CSS variables to control banner styling.

Instructions

Set the banner theme preset and/or individual CSS custom properties. Only --cvrt-consent-* properties are accepted.

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": "legal_put_theme"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYesSite id (see list_sites)
varsNo--cvrt-consent-* overrides
presetNodefault or dark

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.4.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one valuable constraint ('Only --cvrt-consent-* properties are accepted'), which tells the agent a validation rule. However, for a mutation ('put') it omits whether unmentioned vars are preserved or wiped (merge vs replace semantics) and any permission requirements.

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 tight sentences with zero waste. The action and the CSS-property restriction are both front-loaded, making the definition fast to parse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the accepted namespace but is silent on replacement semantics (does omitting a var reset it?) and side effects. This is adequate but leaves a meaningful behavioral gap for a write operation.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (site, vars, preset). The description reinforces the accepted property namespace for vars and the preset/vars duality, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Set) and resource (banner theme preset and/or CSS custom properties), which is clearly distinct from the sibling read tool legal_get_theme. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but the write-oriented purpose is unambiguous.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The only sibling that overlaps (legal_get_theme) is never referenced, and no prerequisite like fetching current theme first is mentioned.

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