AutoWP MCP Server

format-wp-content

Convert raw text into structured WordPress-ready HTML to prepare content for publishing.

Instructions

Format raw text into WordPress-ready HTML

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": {
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "format-wp-content"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes	Raw text content

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description is too vague about what 'format' actually entails. It doesn't disclose whether it escapes HTML, preserves line breaks, handles Markdown, or requires authentication. The transformation behavior is essentially a black box, giving the agent no understanding of limitations or side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently states the primary transformation, earning a high score for conciseness even though it sacrifices depth.

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?

Despite being a simple 1-parameter tool, the description is too incomplete to fully support an agent's decision-making. It lacks details about the output format (exact HTML structure), whether the operation is local or remote, and any constraints on input. The absence of output schema and annotations makes this a significant gap.

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 fully describes the 'content' parameter as 'Raw text content', and the description repeats this without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description doesn't go beyond the schema but doesn't hurt either.

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 uses a specific verb ('Format') and clearly defines both the input ('raw text') and the output ('WordPress-ready HTML'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only formatting tool, even though it doesn't name a direct alternative.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., create-blog-post, update-post). It doesn't mention that it should precede content creation or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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