Add a widget to a WordPress sidebar by providing site, sidebar ID, and widget type, with optional position and settings.
Add a widget to a sidebar
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| position | No | Position in sidebar | |
| settings | No | Widget settings | |
| sidebar_id | Yes | Target sidebar ID | |
| widget_type | Yes | Widget type (e.g., text, search) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Input schema / properties / siteAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "sidebar_id",
- "widget_type"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "sidebar_id",
+ "widget_type"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutating action ('Add'), but says nothing about permissions, side effects, defaults, or what happens to existing widgets or settings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise and contains no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a five-parameter mutation tool with required identifiers, an optional position, a nested settings object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It leaves significant gaps around usage context, behavior, and relation to sibling widget tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 five parameters, including site, sidebar_id, widget_type, position, and settings. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a widget to a sidebar.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as update_widget, move_widget, or reorder_widgets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions under which adding a widget is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.