Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Nucleo for WordPress

Nucleo for WordPress

by nucleowp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

nucleo-layout-conditions-set

Idempotent

Replace a layout’s include, exclude, and priority conditions while leaving the rest of the document unchanged; invalid condition types or keys are rejected.

Instructions

Replaces the include, exclude and priority conditions of a layout. The rest of the document does not change. Each condition is {"type", ...keys of the type}, e.g. {"type": "post_type", "value": "prodotto"} or {"type": "post", "value": 12}; unknown types or keys are refused with code layout_condition and the expected format. All types: nucleo/catalog-get topic layouts. baseRevision, if provided, must match the current revision, otherwise it returns conflict. On a published layout an OAuth token also needs the scope nucleo:publish, besides nucleo:design.

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": {
      "postId": "<postId>",
      "conditions": "<conditions>"
    },
    "name": "nucleo-layout-conditions-set"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
postIdYes
conditionsYes
baseRevisionNoRevision read with nucleo/doc-get.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With annotations already declaring idempotent, non-destructive, and write access, the description adds real behavioral context: unknown types or keys are refused with error code layout_condition and the expected format, baseRevision mismatches return conflict, and published layouts require the nucleo:publish scope beyond nucleo:design. This is a write that wholesale replaces the existing conditions block, which is important for an agent to know.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the write operation is stated first, followed by scope guarantee, format, error handling, and auth. A few semicolon-chained clauses could be split for readability, but nearly every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 mutation tool with nested object parameters and no output schema, the description covers format, validation errors, conflict handling, and auth requirements. It stops short of describing what a successful response looks like or how the include/exclude arrays are merged, which would close the remaining gap.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is only 33%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: it explains the condition object shape as {"type", ...keys of the type} with two concrete examples and pins down baseRevision as having to match the current revision or return conflict. Only postId is left undescribed, and its meaning is self-evident from the resource name.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Replaces the include, exclude and priority conditions of a layout.' It also scopes the blast radius with 'The rest of the document does not change.' It does not contrast itself with any sibling, but no sibling in the list covers layout conditions, so differentiation is less critical.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage (a full replacement of the conditions block, revision-checked) but never says explicitly when to use this versus, say, nucleo-layout-explain or nucleo-doc-patch. Prerequisites such as the OAuth scope are stated for published layouts, which helps, but there is no when-not guidance.

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