Install a WordPress.org theme by slug for a chosen site and optionally activate it after installation.
Install a theme from WordPress.org by slug
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| slug | Yes | Theme slug from WordPress.org | |
| activate | No | Activate after install |
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: -[
- "slug"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "slug"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says almost nothing beyond the bare action. It omits whether an existing theme is overwritten, what permissions are required, and how the optional 'activate' side effect changes state.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than truly concise.
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 mutating install tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a state-changing 'activate' option, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what happens on failure, on an existing install, or what the result looks like.
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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (site, slug, activate) are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The phrase 'from WordPress.org by slug' slightly narrows what a valid slug is, but adds little beyond the schema's own 'Theme slug from WordPress.org'.
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 ('Install a theme') plus the source ('from WordPress.org by slug'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling mcp_install_theme_zip. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so it falls just 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It never tells the agent to prefer mcp_install_theme_zip for uploaded packages, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the site needing to be reachable or the theme not already being installed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.