Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-wordpress

mcp-wordpress

by leonardobora
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

wp_assign_menu_location

Assign a WordPress menu to a location via the writable locations field, overcoming the read-only menu-locations endpoint.

Instructions

Assign a location through the menu's writable locations field. The menu-locations endpoint itself is read-only.

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": {
      "ref": "<ref>",
      "location": "<location>"
    },
    "name": "wp_assign_menu_location"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refYes
dry_runNoPreview changes without writing
locationYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write mechanism and notes that the menu-locations endpoint is read-only, which is useful. However, it does not explain side effects such as whether existing location assignments are overwritten or how the menu resource is affected.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a relevant endpoint caveat. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with only two required parameters and one optional dry_run flag, so the description is nearly adequate. However, the ambiguous 'ref' parameter and lack of any note about return values or mutation effects leave meaningful gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Only the dry_run parameter has a schema description, leaving ref and location mostly undocumented. The description adds some meaning to 'location' but does not clarify what 'ref' refers to, and the low schema coverage means the description should compensate more than it does.

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?

The description states a specific action: assigning a location via the menu's writable locations field. It also distinguishes this from the read-only menu-locations endpoint, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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?

The description clearly signals that this tool is the write path for menu locations and that the separate menu-locations endpoint cannot be used for writing. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand when to use this one.

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