Install a WordPress theme directly from a ZIP URL, such as a GitHub release or custom source, and optionally activate or overwrite it.
Install a theme from a ZIP URL (GitHub releases, custom sources)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL to theme ZIP file | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| activate | No | Activate after install | |
| overwrite | No | Overwrite if theme 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 behavioral burden. It says nothing about the fact that 'overwrite' defaults to true (i.e. an existing theme may be silently replaced), nor about required permissions, remote-fetch failures, or whether activation occurs. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful 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 clause with the key qualifier ('ZIP URL') front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity shades into under-specification rather than being optimally structured.
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 destructive-capable install tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the consequences of the default overwrite behavior, activation semantics, and any prerequisite context. What exists is accurate but far from sufficient.
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 all four parameters (url, site, activate, overwrite) are already documented in the schema, including defaults. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 from a ZIP URL') and the parenthetical names concrete sources (GitHub releases, custom sources). It implicitly distinguishes itself from mcp_install_theme (directory/registry installs) via the 'ZIP URL' qualifier, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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 description gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never mentions the sibling mcp_install_theme, which is the obvious alternative for non-ZIP installs. An agent must infer the selection criteria solely from the word 'ZIP' in the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.