Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Nucleo for WordPress

Nucleo for WordPress

by nucleowp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

nucleo-cache-rebuild

Idempotent

Rebuilds cached documents by post IDs or all, sending up to 20 now and the rest to queue; republishes tokens, assets, layouts, and content model when site-describe shows an empty Nucleo cache.

Instructions

Rebuilds the documents listed in postIds, or all documents. Up to 20 are rebuilt right away, the rest goes to the background queue. Creates no new revisions. Also republishes tokens, asset rules, layouts and the content model from the database: use it when site-describe reports an empty Nucleo cache. A document that cannot be rebuilt (invalid, or blocking quality issues on a published post) keeps its previous output: see nucleo/status stale and failed.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "nucleo-cache-rebuild"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
postIdsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: a synchronous/async split ('Up to 20 are rebuilt right away, the rest goes to the background queue'), the fact that no new revisions are created, and failure semantics ('keeps its previous output'). It also routes the agent to nucleo/status for stale and failed outcomes. The only missing piece is whether the queued remainder requires polling or notification.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds real information (batching, no revisions, republish side effects, failure handling). It is dense with semicolon-joined ideas, but there is no filler to cut.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For an idempotent, partially asynchronous rebuild with no output schema, the description covers the immediate-vs-queued split, revision behavior, side effects, and where to check failures. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the outcome.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does explain the one parameter's meaning: the listed documents are rebuilt, and omitting postIds means 'all documents' — a critical default the schema does not express. The 200-item cap is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Rebuilds the documents listed in postIds, or all documents' — and then discloses the secondary effect (republishing tokens, asset rules, layouts, content model). No sibling tool shares this rebuild role, so an agent can identify it without opening other schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'use it when site-describe reports an empty Nucleo cache.' That is a concrete condition an agent can check. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it or name alternatives such as the doc-patch/upsert path for ordinary edits.

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