Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Nucleo for WordPress

Nucleo for WordPress

by nucleowp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

nucleo-fields-set

Idempotent

Saves field values for a post or term after validating every entry; omitted keys stay unchanged, empty values clear fields, and an optional base hash blocks overwriting changed data.

Instructions

Saves field values of a post (postId) or a term (termId). Partial: keys left out are kept. An empty value clears the field. Every value is checked before anything is written. With "base" (the hash from fields-get), nothing is written if the values changed since: error code "conflict". Success returns the new "hash".

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": {
      "values": "<values>"
    },
    "name": "nucleo-fields-set"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseNoHash of the values read with fields-get. Optional.
postIdNoPost ID.
termIdNoTerm ID.
valuesYesValues by field key. Repeaters are lists of rows.

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?

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive write), it discloses meaningful behavior: the write is partial, empty clears a field, validation happens before any write (atomicity), a stale "base" yields error code "conflict", and success returns a new "hash". It does not state the validation failure mode or permission requirements, which are the remaining gaps.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then partial-update semantics, then validation, then concurrency, then return value. No sentence is filler and the telegraphic style never becomes ambiguous.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a nested-object write tool with no output schema, it covers atomicity, concurrency, and the return hash well. It leaves one material ambiguity: the schema requires only "values", so what happens when neither postId nor termId is supplied (or both are) is never stated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: "base" is a hash previously read with fields-get, omitted keys are preserved rather than cleared, empty values clear, and repeaters are row lists. That is genuine semantic value beyond the schema's terse property descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Saves field values of a post (postId) or a term (termId)"), naming the exact parent entities it operates on. It also names the sibling it pairs with ("the hash from fields-get"), so an agent can distinguish reads from writes without opening either schema.

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?

Usage context is clear: use it to persist field values, pass "base" only when you read via fields-get and want optimistic concurrency. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as nucleo-bind-fields or nucleo-content-upsert, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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