wp-cli-mcp

wp_media_import

Import media files from URLs into WordPress using WP-CLI commands. Add images or documents to your media library by providing the source URL and optional title.

Instructions

Import media from 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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "wp_media_import"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	URL of the media file to import
`title`	No	Title for the media item

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires admin permissions, what happens on failure (e.g., invalid URL), if it overwrites existing media, rate limits, or the expected output format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity, though it may be too brief given the lack of other context.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool (import implies write), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover permissions, error handling, return values, or how it fits with sibling tools. For a tool that likely modifies WordPress state, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (url and title). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying URL import, which is already covered by the schema's url description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Import media from URL' clearly states the action (import) and resource (media), with the URL source specified. It distinguishes from siblings like wp_post_create or wp_plugin_install by focusing on media import specifically, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all media-related tools (none listed).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., WordPress media library access), exclusions, or related tools for media handling, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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