AutoWP MCP Server

create-category

Create a new WordPress category by providing a name. Optionally set a slug, parent category, and description. Auto-generates a slug if not supplied to streamline taxonomy organization.

Instructions

Create a new WordPress category

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create-category"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Category name
`slug`	No	Category slug (auto-generated if not provided)
`parent`	No	Parent category ID for hierarchical categories
`description`	No	Category description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Create a new WordPress category' and does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, return format, or behavior on duplicate names. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the core action. It avoids verbosity, though it is somewhat sparse; the brevity is appropriate for a tool with well-documented parameters.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool is simple with full schema coverage, but the description lacks contextual completeness. It does not explain return values, how the parent/slug/description parameters interact, or any edge-case behavior. Given no output schema and no annotations, more context is needed.

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%, with all four parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema already provides adequate field-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('wordpress category'), which clearly indicates a creation operation and distinguishes it from update/delete/merge sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from create-tag or provide any additional context beyond the tool name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of scenarios like handling duplicates or prerequisite parent categories. The description simply states what it does without any usage context.

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