Install a WordPress plugin from a ZIP URL, such as GitHub releases or custom sources. Optionally activate it or overwrite an existing installation.
Install a plugin from a ZIP URL (GitHub releases, custom sources)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL to plugin ZIP file | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| activate | No | Activate after install | |
| overwrite | No | Overwrite if plugin already exists |
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: -[
- "url"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "url"
+]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. It says nothing about the destructive default overwrite=true (existing plugin silently replaced), whether elevated permissions are required, that arbitrary remote code will be executed on the site, or whether the plugin is activated. For an install-from-URL mutation this is a substantial gap.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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 tool that downloads and installs remote code with overwrite defaulting to true, and with no annotations or output schema, the description should disclose safety-relevant behavior. As written it is far too thin for the operation's risk profile.
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% and all four parameters (url, site, activate, overwrite) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only vaguely widens the acceptable URL sources beyond what the schema already states.
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?
States a specific verb and resource plus the source type ('Install a plugin from a ZIP URL'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling mcp_install_plugin that installs from the wp.org directory. However, it never names that sibling, so the distinction must be inferred from the phrase 'ZIP URL'.
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?
The parenthetical '(GitHub releases, custom sources)' hints at when this tool is appropriate (plugins not available in the wp.org repo), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. mcp_install_plugin guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention that the URL must be publicly reachable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.