Skip to main content
Glama

nucleo-media-import

Downloads a public image from an HTTPS URL and imports it into the WordPress media library with alt text for supported formats up to 10 MB.

Instructions

Downloads a public image from an https URL and adds it to the media library, with alt text. Accepts only jpeg, png, webp, gif and avif, up to 10 MB.

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": {
      "url": "<url>",
      "alt": "<alt>"
    },
    "name": "nucleo-media-import"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
altYesAlternative text. Empty string for decorative images.
urlYesPublic https URL of the image.
titleNoMedia title.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds real constraints beyond them: accepted formats, a 10 MB ceiling, and the https/public requirement. It does not disclose what a repeat import of the same URL produces (despite non-idempotency), nor any auth or permission requirements.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, then the hard constraints. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description gives the limits an agent needs to avoid a failed call. The only real gap is the return value and duplicate-handling behavior.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so url, alt, and title are already documented, including the empty-string convention for decorative alt text. The description's 'with alt text' and format/size limits do not significantly extend per-parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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?

A concrete verb-plus-resource statement: it downloads an image from an https URL and adds it to the media library. It is clearly distinct from a local-file upload tool, but it never names the sibling (nucleo-media-upload / nucleo-media-import for fonts) it should be chosen over, so differentiation is only implicit.

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 'public https URL' constraint implies the use case and implicitly rules out local files or private URLs, but no alternative tool is named and no when-not guidance is given. The agent must infer that a binary upload belongs elsewhere.

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