Update one WordPress plugin to its current available version by providing the site ID and plugin file path.
Update a single plugin to latest version
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| plugin | Yes | Plugin file path (e.g., akismet/akismet.php) |
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: -[
- "plugin"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "plugin"
+]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 for a mutation tool, and it discloses almost nothing: no mention of permissions, whether the plugin must be inactive, whether it deactivates/reactivates, what happens if already current, or any failure/reversibility behavior.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, but structurally it is clean and efficient.
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 multi-tenant mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits essential context: auth/permission needs, side effects of updating, and outcome expectations. The schema covers parameters, but the description leaves the operation's behavior opaque.
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%, with 'site' and 'plugin' both documented in the schema (including the path example), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Update a single plugin') plus the target state ('to latest version'). The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling mcp_update_all_plugins, though it never names that alternative outright.
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 statement of when to use this versus mcp_update_all_plugins, wp_activate_plugin, or mcp_install_plugin, and no prerequisites such as whether the plugin must already be installed or inactive. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.