Deactivate an installed WordPress plugin on a specific site by providing its file path, useful for troubleshooting or disabling features without deleting it.
Deactivate an installed plugin (via cvrt-mcp-endpoints)
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a mutation operation, whether it requires specific permissions, whether it is reversible, or what side effects occur. The parenthetical '(via cvrt-mcp-endpoints)' is an implementation detail that adds little behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single, efficient phrase that is front-loaded with the action. It could be slightly clearer by omitting the implementation detail, but overall it is concise.
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 is too sparse. It does not cover prerequisites, side effects, return values, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for safe and correct 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 both parameters ('site' and 'plugin') with examples. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 specific verb+resource: 'Deactivate an installed plugin'. This clearly conveys the action and target, distinguishing it from siblings like wp_activate_plugin or wp_delete_plugin. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from those siblings 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wp_activate_plugin or wp_delete_plugin. The description provides only the bare action without context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.