Update an existing WordPress user account by changing display name, email, roles, or password for a specified site.
Update an existing user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | User ID | |
| name | No | Display name | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| No | Email address | ||
| roles | No | Roles | |
| password | No | New password |
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: -[
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "id"
+]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 behavioral burden. It implies a mutation operation but discloses nothing about permission requirements, side effects of changing passwords or roles, reversibility, or whether updates are destructive. For a user-mutation tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.
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 sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded and wastes no space. Its brevity is not due to verbosity but rather to under-specification, which is assessed under other dimensions.
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?
Given six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation operation, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain prerequisites, permissions, side effects, or the update semantics beyond the schema. An agent has almost no contextual guidance beyond the parameter names.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all six parameters, so the schema itself documents id, site, name, email, roles, and password. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and the description does not compensate further.
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 and resource: 'Update an existing user'. This distinguishes it from creation and deletion siblings, but it does not differentiate it from the similarly named mcp_update_user or explain what aspects of the user are updated. The purpose is clear but lacks 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mcp_update_user, wp_get_user, or wp_create_user. There are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description only states what the tool does, not when an agent should select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.