Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Nucleo for WordPress

Nucleo for WordPress

by nucleowp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

nucleo-menu-set

Destructive

Creates or updates a navigation menu by slug and replaces all its items with ordered page, post, URL, or reference links, including nested children.

Instructions

Creates or updates a navigation menu by slug and replaces all its items. Each item is {label, page | post | url | ref, children}: page and post take the slug of a published page or post; ref points to other targets: "home", "archive:", ":" (a published post, hierarchical slugs as paths), "term:/"; url is only for external links; children are nested items, up to 3 levels deep. Existing items are removed. If a target is not found, nothing changes.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "nucleo-menu-set"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoMenu name. Defaults to the slug.
slugYesMenu slug, lowercase, e.g. "principale".
itemsYesMenu items in order. Each item: {label: string, page?: slug, post?: slug, url?: string, ref?: string, children?: items}. Exactly one of page, post, url, ref.

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 destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new context: the scope of destruction ('Existing items are removed', full replacement rather than merge) and atomic failure semantics ('If a target is not found, nothing changes'). Only gaps are the return value and any 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense but front-loaded: the create/update and replacement facts come first, then the item grammar. The ref-format enumeration is long but every token earns its place; the destructive consequence ('Existing items are removed') could have been placed earlier alongside the 'replaces all its items' claim rather than mid-paragraph.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a three-parameter destructive upsert with no output schema, the definition covers the operation, the full item payload grammar, nesting limits, and failure atomicity — everything needed to invoke it correctly. Return values are the only unaddressed element, and no output schema exists to defer to, but the tool's outcome is predictable from the stated semantics.

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 100%, so a baseline of 3 would apply, but the description goes well beyond the schema by spelling out the full 'ref' target grammar (home, archive:<post-type>, <post-type>:<slug>, term:<taxonomy>/<slug>), hierarchical slug paths, the external-only rule for url, and the 3-level children depth limit.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource ('Creates or updates a navigation menu by slug') plus the defining behavior 'replaces all its items.' An agent can immediately distinguish this write tool from the sibling nucleo-menu-list read tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the upsert framing and the constraint 'url is only for external links,' but the description never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as nucleo-menu-list, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g., menu must exist for updates, or 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