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

wp-mcp-control-server

by mpierre135
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

wp_update_form_webhook

Update an existing Ninja Forms webhook action by form ID and action ID, with optional URL, label, method, headers, and active status.

Instructions

Update a Ninja Forms webhook action

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": {
      "form_id": "<form_id>",
      "action_id": "<action_id>"
    },
    "name": "wp_update_form_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNo
labelNo
activeNo
methodNo
form_idYesNinja Form ID
headersNo
action_idYesWebhook action ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.3.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

Does 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 only repeats the mutation implied by the name and does not explain effects on existing webhook actions, whether unspecified fields are preserved or overwritten, or what response to expect.

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?

The description is a single clear sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the action verb, though the brevity sacrifices useful detail.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With 7 parameters, 29% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is far from complete. The agent lacks information about required identifiers, optional update fields, nested header structure, and return behavior.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 29%, and the description names none of the parameters. It does not clarify the meaning or usage of url, label, active, method, headers, form_id, or action_id beyond what the sparse schema provides.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states a specific action ('Update') and resource ('Ninja Forms webhook action'), so the core purpose is understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like wp_create_form_webhook or wp_delete_form_webhook beyond the verb itself.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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, no prerequisites, and no context about existing webhook actions. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the word 'Update'.

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