Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Nucleo for WordPress

Nucleo for WordPress

by nucleowp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

nucleo-terms-set

Idempotent

Create or update taxonomy terms by slug, preserving omitted fields and skipping unchanged entries; stale base hashes return a conflict without saving that term.

Instructions

Creates or updates the terms of a taxonomy by slug. Partial: keys left out are kept. Terms are never deleted. A term identical to the saved one is not written and reports action "unchanged". A term with errors writes nothing; the others go on. A term with "base" (the hash from terms-get) that changed since is not saved: error code "conflict".

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": {
      "taxonomy": "<taxonomy>",
      "terms": "<terms>"
    },
    "name": "nucleo-terms-set"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mediaNoMap from file name to URL, from the manifest.
termsYesTerms by slug: name (required on creation), description, parent (slug), fields, base (hash read with terms-get: the term is saved only if it did not change since).
dryRunNoChecks the terms without writing. Results have the expected action and a null id.
pendingNoSymbols the push will create, such as term:<taxonomy>/<slug> or media:<file>. Used with dryRun.
taxonomyYesTaxonomy slug.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses merge semantics (omitted keys are kept), that terms are never deleted, that no-op writes report action 'unchanged', partial-failure behavior where errored terms write nothing while others proceed, and optimistic concurrency with error code 'conflict'. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking a write tool and are not derivable from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint alone.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the write semantics, then descending into edge cases (unchanged, per-term failure, conflict). Every sentence carries a distinct behavioral fact; nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 5-parameter nested-object write tool with no output schema, the description covers mutation semantics, failure modes, and error codes, which is most of what an agent needs. It does not describe the overall response shape (e.g., per-term results list, ids) or the 500-item cap, leaving a small gap given the absent output schema.

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 the schema already explains taxonomy, terms, base, dryRun, pending, and media. The description corroborates the meaning of 'base' and the partial-terms contract but adds no new syntax or format detail; the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates or updates the terms of a taxonomy by slug,' and immediately clarifies that this is a partial upsert rather than a replace. It also names the sibling nucleo-terms-get as the source of the 'base' hash, so an agent can tell where the concurrency token comes from without opening another definition.

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?

Usage context is clear: partial updates, no deletions, and per-term error isolation, plus the explicit routing to terms-get for the base hash. What is missing is an explicit 'when not to use this' statement (e.g., for taxonomy creation versus term-level changes), but the operating conditions are well conveyed.

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