Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Cowboy MCP

Cowboy MCP

by februality
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

cowboy_run

Executes a named WordPress tool with arguments after discovery, enabling posts, WooCommerce, hooks, and settings operations via MCP.

Instructions

Execute a WordPress tool by name with arguments. Use cowboy_discover first to find the right tool and its inputSchema.

Examples:

  • cowboy_run(tool="wp_cli", arguments={command: "post list --format=json --posts_per_page=5"})

  • cowboy_run(tool="wp_wordfence_update_settings", arguments={settings: {maxFailures: 8}})

  • cowboy_run(tool="wp_get_hooks", arguments={hook: "init"})

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNoA file the user attached in the chat (ChatGPT). Only with tool="wp_upload_media"; put title, alt_text, post_id and resize options in arguments.
toolYesTool name from cowboy_discover results
argumentsNoTool arguments per the tool's inputSchema

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / file
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "A file the user attached in the chat (ChatGPT). Only with tool=\"wp_upload_media\"; put title, alt_text, post_id and resize options in arguments.",
+  "properties": {
+    "download_url": {
+      "description": "Temporary download link ChatGPT provides for the file",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "file_id": {
+      "description": "ChatGPT file id",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "file_name": {
+      "description": "Original file name",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "mime_type": {
+      "description": "MIME type, e.g. image/png",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "download_url",
+    "file_id"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv1.7.4

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. What it omits is meaningful for a generic dispatcher: that side effects are entirely determined by the invoked tool, and that underlying tool errors are surfaced through this call. The examples hint at arbitrary execution but the description never warns that this wrapper can trigger mutating WordPress operations.

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?

Purpose sentence is front-loaded and short; the example block earns its space by demonstrating the argument shape variance. Three examples is slightly more than needed (two would establish the pattern), but nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say something about what comes back — it says nothing about return format, error propagation, or whether the result is the underlying tool's raw output. The nested `file` parameter is fully documented in the schema, so that gap is covered, but the return/error contract is missing for a tool with this much indirection.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds real value by explaining that `arguments` must conform to the discovered tool's inputSchema and by showing three concrete shapes (flat string command, nested settings object, simple scalar). This makes the indirection between `tool` and `arguments` explicit rather than leaving it to inference.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Execute a WordPress tool by name with arguments') and implicitly separates itself from the only sibling by assigning discovery to cowboy_discover. An agent immediately knows this is the dispatcher, not the catalog.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Use cowboy_discover first to find the right tool and its inputSchema' gives an explicit prerequisite and names the alternative tool. It stops short of stating exclusions or failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the tool name is unknown or arguments are invalid), so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not rule set.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools