Activate an installed WordPress plugin via cvrt-mcp-endpoints to bypass often-blocked core routes. Provide site ID and plugin file path.
Activate an installed plugin (via cvrt-mcp-endpoints, avoids the often-blocked core route)
| 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 / plugin / descriptionPrevious value: -"Plugin identifier (e.g., 'akismet/akismet.php')"New value: +"Plugin file path, e.g. akismet/akismet.php"Input 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. It usefully discloses the transport detail that activation runs via cvrt-mcp-endpoints and sidesteps a commonly blocked core route, which is real operational context. It says nothing about permissions required, idempotency, or what happens if the plugin is missing, so disclosure is partial.
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 sentence with verb+resource front-loaded and the caveat appended. Nothing is wasted, though it is terse enough to leave gaps rather than being padded.
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 simple two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the endpoint rationale. It omits error behavior, permission requirements, and confirmation of the activation result, which an agent invoking a state-changing operation would benefit from.
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 both parameters (site, plugin) are documented in the schema with examples. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb (Activate) plus resource (plugin) with a scope qualifier ('installed'), so an agent can tell it apart from install/update/delete siblings. It does not explicitly name the closest alternative wp_deactivate_plugin, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
The parenthetical 'avoids the often-blocked core route' implies this variant is preferable to the core route, giving implicit usage context. However it never states prerequisites (the plugin must already be installed) or explicitly contrasts wp_activate_plugin with wp_deactivate_plugin/mcp_install_plugin.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.