Create or update a WordPress option by passing site ID, key, and value; set autoload to control whether it loads on every page.
Create or update an option
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Option name | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| value | No | Option value (any type) | |
| autoload | No | Load on every page |
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: -[
- "key"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "key"
+]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. It indicates an upsert ('create or update'), but does not disclose permissions required, whether existing values are overwritten, the effect of autoload, or any side effects.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence with zero waste and front-loads the operation. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to gaps addressed in other dimensions.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits permission requirements, overwrite semantics, autoload implications, and how it relates to the surrounding option-management siblings.
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 four parameters including defaults. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a 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?
The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Create or update an option'. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as mcp_get_option, mcp_list_options, or mcp_delete_option.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of sibling tools like mcp_get_option or mcp_delete_option. The verb implies setting an option, but no context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.