wp-cli-mcp

wp_option_update

Update WordPress site options directly via WP-CLI to modify configuration settings and customize site behavior.

Instructions

Update a WordPress option

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": {
      "key": "<key>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "wp_option_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	Yes	Option name
`value`	Yes	New value

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are permanent or reversible, potential side effects, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core action, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for this simple tool.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid 'WordPress option', what format the value should be in, whether the update is atomic, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('key' and 'value') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured data, so it meets the baseline for adequate but unhelpful parameter documentation.

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 the verb ('Update') and resource ('WordPress option'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'wp_option_get' (which retrieves options) or explain what a 'WordPress option' specifically is, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wp_post_update' or 'wp_option_get'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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