AutoWP MCP Server

save-draft

Save a post draft locally by providing its unique ID, title, and content, allowing later retrieval or publishing.

Instructions

Save a post draft locally

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": {
      "postId": "<postId>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "save-draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Post title
`postId`	Yes	Unique ID for the draft
`content`	Yes	Post content

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the draft is saved locally, but does not disclose whether saving overwrites existing drafts, requires authentication, or returns a confirmation. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.

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, focused sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately concise for a simple save operation.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple and the schema covers all parameters, but there is no output schema, no annotations, and the description does not mention return values, error conditions, or overwrite behavior. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (postId, title, content). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (save), the resource (post draft), and the scope (locally). This distinguishes it from siblings like create-blog-post (publishing) and load-draft (reading).

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 word 'locally' implies usage for local draft operations rather than remote publishing, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create-blog-post or load-draft. Usage is implied but not directly guided.

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