wordpress-mcp

wp_activate_theme

Activate or switch a WordPress site's active theme by specifying the site ID and theme stylesheet folder name.

Instructions

Activate a theme (switch themes)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "stylesheet": "<stylesheet>"
    },
    "name": "wp_activate_theme"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	Yes	Site id (see list_sites)
`stylesheet`	Yes	Theme stylesheet (folder name) to activate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv3.4.0Oct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / site

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "stylesheet"
-]New value: +[
+  "site",
+  "stylesheet"
+]

First observedv2.0.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Switch themes' implies the previously active theme is replaced, but nothing is said about reversibility, required permissions, or whether the target theme must be pre-installed — all significant for a state-changing tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely short and front-loaded; the core action is stated immediately. The parenthetical 'switch themes' is mildly redundant but cheaply clarifies intent, so there is no meaningful waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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 is close to sufficient, but it omits the key behavioral fact — what happens to the currently active theme — leaving a gap an agent would want filled.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%: 'site' (site id, see list_sites) and 'stylesheet' (theme folder name) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (activate) and resource (theme), with the parenthetical clarifying that it switches the site's active theme. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like mcp_install_theme, mcp_update_theme, or wp_get_active_theme, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this versus installing/updating a theme, and no prerequisites stated (e.g., that the theme must already be installed). The agent gets no explicit context or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server