AutoWP MCP Server

optimize-media

Compress and optimize WordPress media images via external API, reducing file size and improving site performance.

Instructions

Compress and optimize images using external API (e.g., TinyPNG)

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": {
      "mediaId": "<mediaId>"
    },
    "name": "optimize-media"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mediaId`	Yes	ID of the media item to optimize
`quality`	No	Compression quality (10-100)
`replaceOriginal`	No	Replace original file or create new version

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'compress and optimize' but omits side effects, such as whether the original is replaced, whether a new version is created, or any permission requirements. The replaceOriginal parameter is not referenced.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It does not explain what happens to the media item, whether the operation is reversible, or the return format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full effect.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters, including defaults, ranges, and meanings. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool compresses and optimizes images, using a specific verb and resource. Mentioning 'external API' adds context. No sibling tool offers this functionality, making it distinguishable.

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 alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the media item existing, or situations where this tool is preferred over other media operations.

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