Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Nucleo for WordPress

Nucleo for WordPress

by nucleowp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

nucleo-media-upload

Upload a base64-encoded image to the WordPress media library with alt text, supporting JPEG, PNG, WebP, GIF and AVIF up to 10 MB; duplicate files return the existing media item.

Instructions

Uploads an image sent as base64 to the media library, with alt text. Accepts only jpeg, png, webp, gif and avif, up to 10 MB. An identical file already in the library is returned without uploading it again.

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": {
      "file": "<file>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "nucleo-media-upload"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
altNoAlternative text. Empty string for decorative images.
dataYesImage content encoded in base64.
fileYesFile name with extension, for example photo.png.
titleNoMedia title.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses concrete behavioral traits: allowed formats, the 10 MB cap, and de-duplication ('an identical file already in the library is returned without uploading it again'), which materially affects agent decisions about retries. It leaves out what the call returns (media ID/URL) and any auth or library-state requirements; the de-dup note also sits in mild tension with idempotentHint=false, though content-based de-dup is not the same as operation idempotency.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then constraints, then the de-dup behavior. No filler and no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema, and the description never indicates what comes back on success (media identifier, URL, whether the existing item is flagged on de-dup), which an agent needs to chain calls. For a mutating upload tool with four parameters, the format/size/de-dup coverage is good but the response contract is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so alt, data, file and title are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds validation detail the schema lacks (format allow-list and size limit) applicable to the 'data' parameter, but says nothing extra about 'title' or 'file' naming.

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: 'Uploads an image sent as base64 to the media library, with alt text.' An agent can immediately tell this creates a media item from encoded image data. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling nucleo-media-import, which likely covers a related path.

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 gives useful acceptance criteria (jpeg, png, webp, gif, avif, up to 10 MB) that implicitly define when the tool will succeed. It never states when to prefer this over nucleo-media-import or nucleo-media-formats, and gives no prerequisites such as required permissions.

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