Update Elementor page-level settings by merging new values into a specific page's configuration using its site and page ID.
Update Elementor page-level settings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Post/page ID | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| settings | Yes | 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: -[
- "id",
- "settings"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "id",
+ "settings"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The schema description for 'settings' says 'Settings to merge,' which is helpful context about merge semantics, but the description itself offers no additional behavioral detail such as whether this requires an Elementor editor context, whether the update is destructive to unspecified settings, or what the response looks like.
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, efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, though it is arguably too terse given the absence of annotations and output schema.
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, no output schema, and no when-to-use guidance, the description is thin. It does not explain the merge behavior, required permissions, or what happens to existing settings not included in the update, leaving meaningful gaps for safe invocation.
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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the name. Baseline 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Update Elementor page-level settings.' It is easy to distinguish from sibling mcp_get_elementor_page_settings (which fetches, versus this which updates) and from mcp_update_elementor_element, which operates on elements rather than page-level settings. The distinction is clear but not explicitly reinforced in the text.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not name the getter counterpart or explain when to update page settings versus element settings, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.