Search and replace strings in WordPress database tables while preserving serialized data; preview changes with dry-run before applying.
Search and replace strings in database (serialization-safe)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| search | Yes | String to search for | |
| tables | No | Specific tables (empty = all) | |
| dry_run | No | Preview without applying | |
| replace | Yes | Replacement string |
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: -[
- "search",
- "replace"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "search",
+ "replace"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only adds 'serialization-safe.' It does not disclose that this is a mutation operation, whether it requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, how dry_run behaves, or what data can be overwritten.
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 zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a concise tool summary, though the tension with contextual completeness is handled in that dimension.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters. The one-sentence description lacks usage guidance, safety details (beyond serialization), permission expectations, and practical context like dry-run defaults. The schema covers parameters, but behavioral context remains thin.
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 the input schema already documents all five parameters including site, search, replace, tables, and dry_run. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 phrase, 'Search and replace strings,' and resource, 'in database,' with an added qualifier '(serialization-safe).' An agent can immediately tell this tool performs bulk string replacement across database content, versus sibling tools that read, create, or update specific records.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. It does not mention using dry_run first, which tables are affected by default, or what conditions warrant a search-replace operation. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.