Move a WordPress widget to a different sidebar by specifying the site, widget ID, target sidebar ID, and optional position.
Move a widget to a different sidebar
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| position | No | Position in target sidebar | |
| widget_id | Yes | Widget ID | |
| sidebar_id | Yes | Target sidebar ID |
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: -[
- "widget_id",
- "sidebar_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "widget_id",
+ "sidebar_id"
+]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 does not state that this is a mutation, whether the widget is removed from the old sidebar, whether settings are preserved, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for its limited content, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
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?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain side effects, what happens to the widget's existing position or settings, or any operational context needed for safe invocation.
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 (site, widget_id, sidebar_id, position) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional details about parameter format, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (move) and resource (widget) plus the scope (to a different sidebar). This inherently distinguishes it from mcp_reorder_widgets (ordering within a sidebar) and mcp_update_widget (changing widget settings), though it does not name those siblings 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or preconditions. The description merely restates the action without any context about when a move is appropriate or what alternatives exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.