Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wp-mcp-control-server

wp-mcp-control-server

by mpierre135
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

wp_elementor_update_button

Locate an Elementor button by its current text and update its label or link URL on a WordPress page.

Instructions

Find a button (or raven-button) by matching button text and update text and/or URL.

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": {
      "page_id": "<page_id>",
      "match_text": "<match_text>"
    },
    "name": "wp_elementor_update_button"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoNew button URL
page_idYes
new_textNoNew button label
match_textYesExisting button text to find

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions update (mutation) but lacks details on required permissions, what happens if multiple buttons match, or whether the tool only works with Elementor/raven-button widgets. Significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and target, no wasted words. Every word adds value.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, no annotations. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, updated element ID), or behavior on no match or multiple matches. For a tool with 4 parameters and a mutation action, this is incomplete.

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 coverage is 75% (3 of 4 params have descriptions). The description adds that match_text is for finding the button, and new_text/url are updates. It does not describe page_id (missing from description). Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already covers most params sufficiently.

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 verb ('Find and update') and resource ('button or raven-button'), with clear criteria (matching button text) and actions (update text/URL). It distinguishes from sibling tools like wp_elementor_update_text which don't target buttons specifically.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when you need to update a button's text or URL based on its current text, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like wp_elementor_update_text or wp_elementor_update_element. Context is clear but no exclusions.

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