wordpress-mcp

mcp_update_all_plugins

Update all WordPress plugins with available updates for a specified site. Bulk update outdated plugins to maintain site security and performance.

Instructions

Update all plugins with available updates

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "site": "<site>"
    },
    "name": "mcp_update_all_plugins"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	Yes	Site id (see list_sites)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv3.4.0Oct 1, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / site
```
Added value: +{
+  "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "site"
+]
```
First observedv2.0.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does 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 states the action but omits whether updates require authentication, whether the operation is reversible, how failures are handled, or whether it may take significant time. For a bulk mutation tool, this is a notable gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. It communicates the core action and scope immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter bulk update tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is done but not how it behaves (e.g., permission requirements, partial failures). It is minimally adequate but leaves behavioral context to be inferred.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'site' parameter is documented in the schema as 'Site id (see list_sites)'. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update all plugins') with a clear scope condition ('with available updates'). The word 'all' distinguishes it from the sibling mcp_update_plugin, which handles single-plugin updates.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The bulk-update intent is implied, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus mcp_update_plugin or mcp_check_updates. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server