Update a single WordPress theme to its current version by specifying the site ID and theme folder name.
Update a single theme to latest version
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| stylesheet | Yes | Theme folder name |
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: -[
- "stylesheet"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "stylesheet"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say where the 'latest version' comes from, whether local customizations are overwritten, whether an update precondition must be met, or whether the operation is reversible.
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 short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is partly responsible for the missing detail elsewhere rather than pure conciseness.
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 and no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify what 'update to latest version' entails and what happens if it fails or is already current. Both parameters are schema-documented, but the behavioral picture an agent needs before invoking a write operation is largely absent.
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%: 'site' is documented as the site id and 'stylesheet' as the theme folder name, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no additional semantics beyond that, which is the expected baseline 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource ('Update a single theme') with a clarifying scope ('to latest version'), which disambiguates from a settings edit. The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like mcp_update_all_themes, but the distinction is only implied rather than stated.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'a single theme' suggests use this instead of the bulk mcp_update_all_themes, and the required 'site'/'stylesheet' inputs imply the theme must already be installed. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite mention, and no named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.