Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wordpress-mcp

wordpress-mcp

by cvrt-jh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

legal_update_section

Update a legal section's heading or body while keeping its slug unchanged, so existing shortcodes remain functional.

Instructions

Update a section. The slug is never rewritten, so shortcodes already placed on a page keep working when a heading is renamed.

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>",
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "legal_update_section"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
docYesDocument type
bodyNo
siteYesSite id (see list_sites)
slugYesSection slug
levelNo
headingNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.4.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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 usefully discloses that the slug is never rewritten and shortcodes remain intact when a heading is renamed, but it does not say whether updates are partial or destructive, what permissions are needed, or how omitted fields are handled.

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 short sentences with zero wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the behavioral detail follows immediately.

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 six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It explains one slug behavior but omits update semantics, field requirements, and failure modes.

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 50%, with doc, site, and slug documented in the schema. The description adds meaning for slug and heading by explaining slug immutability during heading renames, but it does not clarify body, level, or how doc/site interact with the update.

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: 'Update a section.' The purpose is clear, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as legal_add_section or legal_delete_section.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not name alternatives. The tool name implies update, but the description offers no routing or prerequisite context.

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