AutoWP MCP Server

create-tag

Create a new WordPress tag by specifying its name, optional slug, and description. Simplifies adding taxonomy terms directly through the WordPress REST API.

Instructions

Create a new WordPress tag

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-tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Tag name
`slug`	No	Tag slug (auto-generated if not provided)
`description`	No	Tag description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it adds nothing beyond the basic fact that it creates a tag. It does not mention side effects, required authentication, error conditions, or return values.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is no unnecessary information or padding.

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?

Although the tool is simple and parameters are fully described in the schema, the description lacks any context about prerequisites (e.g., authentication), expected return values, or behavior on duplicate tags. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to fully understand usage.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (name, slug, description), so 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter information, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the detail.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new WordPress tag'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update-tag and delete-tag by specifying the create operation.

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?

No guidance is given regarding when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description merely states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and context.

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