Update Elementor global colors, fonts, and typography in a WordPress site by passing a site ID and settings object to merge into the active kit.
Update Elementor global kit settings (colors, fonts, typography)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| settings | Yes | Kit settings to merge |
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: -[
- "settings"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "settings"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive merge operation. It doesn't mention that settings are merged (only the schema param hints 'to merge'), whether it overwrites existing kit values, whether it requires auth, or reversibility.
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?
Single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the verb and target. No filler, though it is quite terse given the complexity of the 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 destructive settings mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits merge semantics, expected setting keys, permissions, and how it differs from mcp_update_elementor_page_settings.
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 coverage is 100% and every parameter is documented in the schema ('site id', 'settings to merge'), so baseline 3 applies. The description adds the semantic categories (colors, fonts, typography) but nothing about required settings keys or format.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Update Elementor global kit settings' with the affected fields (colors, fonts, typography). Distinguishes from mcp_get_elementor_kit (read) and mcp_update_elementor_element/page_settings (different Elementor scopes), though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.
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 guidance. Given three nearby Elementor update tools (element, page settings, kit), the description never routes the agent to the correct one, and there are no prerequisites or side-effect notes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.