Regenerate image thumbnails for a WordPress media item to fix missing or outdated sizes.
Regenerate image thumbnails for a media item
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Image media ID | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) |
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: -[
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "id"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Regenerate' implies a mutation that overwrites or creates thumbnail files, but the description does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., media must exist), whether the operation is idempotent, or any permission requirements.
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 that states the action without any filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple, single-purpose tool.
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 simple two-parameter mutation tool, the description states the core action and the schema fully documents inputs. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description still omits any behavioral context (side effects, what gets regenerated), leaving gaps for an agent to call it with full confidence.
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 both parameters (id and site) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 'for a media item', which loosely maps to the id parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Regenerate') and resource ('image thumbnails for a media item'), which is distinct from sibling media tools like mcp_update_media or mcp_get_media. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings, so it falls short of the top score.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are mentioned. The purpose is self-evident, but an agent gets no explicit context for selecting this tool over e.g. mcp_update_media or mcp_get_media_stats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.