Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Nucleo for WordPress

Nucleo for WordPress

by nucleowp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

nucleo-media-formats

Idempotent

Generate AVIF and WebP versions of uploaded WordPress images, including intermediate sizes, and process only missing formats to complete conversions.

Instructions

Generates the modern image formats (avif, webp) enabled in the site options for images already uploaded, the originals and their intermediate sizes. Images uploaded after the option was turned on get them automatically. Without ids it works on the image attachments in ID order, up to limit. Use missing to process only the images without formats. Returns the images done and how many images are still without formats.

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-media-formats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsNoIDs of image attachments to process. Other attachments are skipped.
limitNoMaximum number of images to process when ids is not given.
missingNoProcess only the images without generated formats.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered; the description adds that existing originals and intermediate sizes are both targeted and that processing can be narrowed to missing formats, which explains why the operation is idempotent. It does not say whether processing is synchronous or what happens if the site option is disabled, and gives no sense of cost for a 50-image batch.

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?

Roughly four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and each clause carries information about default behavior or return values. It is dense and slightly run-on in the middle, but there is no filler.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers targeting, ordering, defaults and return content ('the images done and how many are still without formats'). The remaining gaps are execution traits such as synchronicity and duration for a potentially large batch, plus the prerequisite that the format option must be enabled.

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 description coverage is 100%, so 3 is the baseline, but the description adds real meaning the schema does not: the interaction between ids and limit (limit only applies when ids is absent) and ID-ordered iteration. The explanation of 'missing' largely restates the schema field description.

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 names a specific verb and artifact: generating avif/webp derivatives of already-uploaded image attachments, originals plus intermediate sizes. It also distinguishes itself from the upload/import siblings by stating that images uploaded after the option was enabled get the formats automatically, so this tool is for backfill instead.

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?

It gives concrete operating modes: no ids means ID-ordered processing up to limit, and 'missing' restricts to images lacking formats, which is the safe re-run mode. It implies when not to call it (fresh uploads are handled automatically), but it never names an alternative tool or states an explicit exclusion for non-image attachments beyond the schema note.

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