A post scheduled to publish at a specific time doesn't go live when expected. A plugin's recurring email notification never arrives. This tends to happen on low-traffic sites, and there's a specific reason for it. Note: WP-Cron is WordPress’s built-in scheduling system. It sounds like the OS-level cron daemon, but the underlying mechanism is quite different. WordPress’s WP-Cron doesn’t work like a real OS cron daemon. On every page load, WordPress checks whether any scheduled task is past its due time and, if so, runs it. This is what's known as "pseudo-cron" — and its weakness is that nothing runs without a page visit . Schedule a post to publish at 3am on a site with little overnight traffic, and the publish task can sit unexecuted until the next visitor happens to load a page. WP-CLI lets you look inside this otherwise invisible system and run exactly the task you need, right now. Listing what's scheduled wp cron event list hook next_run_gmt recurrence publish_future_post 2026-06-20 03:00:00 - wp_version_check 2026-06-20 06:12:00 12 hours wp_scheduled_delete 2026-06-21 00:00:00 daily hook is the task's identifier, next_run_gmt is the next scheduled run time in UTC, and recurrence is the repeat interval. If publish_future_post is still listed despite its time having already passed, that confirms the task is overdue simply because no page load has triggered it yet. Running a task right now To trigger a specific task immediately: # Run a specific hook right now wp cron event run publish_future_post # Run every overdue task at once wp cron event run --due-now --due-now finds every task whose scheduled time has passed but hasn't run yet, and executes all of them. Instead of waiting for a visitor to trigger the check, this one command runs the post publish, the email notification, or whatever else is pending. Confirming WP-Cron itself is working wp cron test This checks whether the WP-Cron scheduler is functioning at all. On sites where wp-config.php has define('DISABL

Every MCP server I've read that wraps a third-party REST API has the same shape: someone picked fifteen or twenty endpoints that seemed useful, hand-wrote a Zod schema for each, and shipped it. That works for about three months. Then the API adds a field, deprecates an enum value, renames a query parameter. The wrapper doesn't notice, because nothing in it is connected to the API's own description of itself. The schemas drift. The model starts getting rejected by the upstream API for reasons it can't see, and you get to debug an LLM guessing at a shape that stopped being true in February. The other failure is quieter. You need endpoint twenty-one — the one about persistent disks, or scaling, or environment groups — and the author skipped it. Now you're back to curl , except the agent is holding half the context and you're holding the other half. I wanted neither, so I built render-useful-mcp : an MCP server for Render where every API tool is generated from Render's own OpenAPI document. All 207 endpoints, no curation. The generating part took a weekend. Everything after that was the actual work. Make the generator refuse to guess The tempting way to write a spec-to-tools generator is to make it forgiving. Skip what you can't parse, fall back to { type: "object" } when a $ref gets hairy, log a warning and move on. You get 207 tools on the first run and feel great. You also get tools that lie. A parameter typed as a free-form object when the API actually wants one of four enum values is worse than no tool at all — the model will confidently produce garbage, and the failure surfaces three layers away from the cause. So the generator is fail-closed. It aborts the build, loudly, on: An operation whose tag doesn't map to a known toolset. Render added a resource category and I haven't classified it yet. That's my problem to solve, not something to paper over. A tool name collision. Two operations deriving the same name means my naming scheme is wrong. A cyclic $ref it can'

Microsoft pitched its own homegrown AI models, harnesses, and even a Mythos competitor on Wednesday, telling Wall Street it plans for continued growth.

I have been pushing up to 90 commits a day on a MacBook Air via 4-5 parallel agents. As you can imagine when all the agents try to build, test and run dev servers on an 8GB machine it is the fast lane to a force quit and restart. I also did not want to pay the CI minutes on 90 pushes a day. So I designed a local merge queue to have all commits land one at a time and fully tested. Hopefully this helps other folks with more modest machines. Appreciate any feedback.

I've spent enough time in the trenches of software engineering to know that there is nothing more soul-crushing than writing 'glue code.' You know exactly what I mean—the thousands of lines of boilerplate, error handling, and webhook listeners required just to make two services talk to each other. When Bland AI first arrived on the scene, it was essentially another API you had to integrate. You'd write a Node script, handle the async nature of outbound calls, manage your credentials in environment variables, and then spend weeks building a dashboard just so you could see what happened during a call. It worked, but it wasn't intelligent. The shift we are seeing right now with the Model Context Protocol (MCP) changes the fundamental architecture of integration. We are moving from 'integration as an engineering task' to 'integration as a capability.' Instead of writing code to bridge Bland AI and your application, you provide an MCP server that gives your LLM—whether it's Claude or Cursor—direct access to those telephony tools. I recently started using the Bland AI MCP server via Vinkius, and the difference in how I can orchestrate workflows is night and day. This isn't about just 'making a call.' It's about giving an agentic loop control over a communication channel. The Architecture of Voice Orchestration When you look at traditional API integrations for something like Bland AI, you focus on the request/response cycle. You send a payload to trigger a call, and then you wait for a webhook to notify your backend that the call is finished. With this MCP server, the mental model shifts. You aren't managing webhooks; you are managing tools. The toolset provided here—including send_phone_call , create_voice_agent , and list_recent_calls —allows an LLM to act as a telephony engineer. Here is what happens when you actually use it in Cursor or Claude: You don't just say "Make a call." You can instruct the agent, "Look at my recent calls from yesterday, find any where the tran

TL;DR: MCP servers run with significant privileges inside AI agent pipelines, and most teams ship them without any security review. mcp-security-scan is an open-source CLI and GitHub Action that checks for credential theft patterns, data exfiltration, unsafe execution, and code obfuscation — and outputs a 0-100 trust score that integrates with AgentGraph's identity layer. The Moltbook breach last year is still the clearest example of what happens when you scale agent infrastructure without thinking about trust. 770,000 agents, zero identity verification, and when it went down it exposed 35,000 emails and 1.5 million API tokens. The tokens were the real problem — many of them were credentials passed through MCP servers that nobody had audited. MCP (Model Context Protocol) servers are the connective tissue of modern agent systems. They sit between your LLM and the outside world, handling tool calls, filesystem access, API requests. That position gives them a lot of power. It also makes them an obvious target. And yet most teams treat MCP servers like they treat npm packages circa 2015: install and trust. What Actually Goes Wrong Before getting into the scanner, it's worth being specific about the threat categories. There are four that show up most often in real codebases: Credential theft — MCP servers that read environment variables indiscriminately, log request/response payloads, or forward tool call arguments to external endpoints. This one is subtle because the server might be doing legitimate work and exfiltrating credentials. Data exfiltration — Outbound HTTP calls to domains that weren't declared in the server's manifest, or calls that happen inside tool handlers where the LLM can influence the destination URL. Prompt injection into tool parameters is the attack vector here. Unsafe execution — eval() , exec() , subprocess calls, or dynamic require() / import() where the argument comes from tool call input. If an LLM can influence what gets executed, you have a

This is a submission for DEV's Summer Bug Smash: Smash Stories powered by Sentry. You know those...

avatarin uses OpenAI’s GPT-Realtime to give Yamada Denki shoppers 24/7 multilingual support. In two weeks, 30,000 people used the agent and 92% of survey responses were positive.

As Meta pours billions into AI infrastructure and agents, Zuckerberg is working to convince investors that the payoff will be worth the price.