AutoWP MCP Server

merge-categories

Combine two WordPress categories by moving all posts from a source category into a target category, with optional source deletion.

Instructions

Merge two categories by moving all posts from source to target 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": {
      "sourceCategoryId": "<sourceCategoryId>",
      "targetCategoryId": "<targetCategoryId>"
    },
    "name": "merge-categories"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`deleteSource`	No	Delete source category after merging
`sourceCategoryId`	Yes	ID of the category to merge from
`targetCategoryId`	Yes	ID of the category to merge into

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects. It fails to mention that the source category is deleted by default (deleteSource=true), a destructive behavior, and does not describe what happens to existing posts in the target category. This is a significant transparency 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, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and resource. It is concise and easy to parse, though it omits important behavioral details that could be added without bloating the text.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not mention the default deletion of the source category or the return value, leaving the agent unable to predict the tool's full impact. The description is insufficient for a destructive merge operation.

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 clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (merge), the resources (categories), and the effect (moving all posts from source to target). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update-category or delete-category by focusing on the consolidation behavior.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for consolidating categories but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as assign-categories-to-posts or delete-category. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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