Skip to main content
Glama
cvrt-jh

wordpress-mcp

by cvrt-jh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mcp_update_core

Update WordPress core on a specified site to a supported release, helping patch security issues and keep the CMS current.

Instructions

Update WordPress to the latest version

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYesSite id (see list_sites)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv3.4.0
    • 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"
+]
  2. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 is a mutation operation that updates core files, but the description does not disclose risks, required permissions, downtime, backup recommendations, 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

One efficient, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple description, though it borders on being too terse for a high-risk operation.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a high-risk core update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It omits critical context such as potential site breakage, need for backups, or compatibility checks.

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 fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline for this dimension.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('WordPress'), clearly implying core update as opposed to plugin or theme updates. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools like mcp_update_plugin or mcp_check_updates, but the resource name alone distinguishes it sufficiently.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives or conditions. The use case is implied (update when a new version is available) but nothing is stated explicitly.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools