AutoWP MCP Server

update-category

Modify an existing WordPress category's name, slug, parent, or description using its category ID.

Instructions

Update or rename an existing WordPress 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": {
      "categoryId": "<categoryId>"
    },
    "name": "update-category"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New category name
`slug`	No	New category slug
`parent`	No	New parent category ID
`categoryId`	Yes	ID of the category to update
`description`	No	New category description

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only reveals that the tool mutates a category, but does not disclose permissions, side effects on posts, error handling, reversibility, 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 sentence, front-loaded, and contains no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and every word earns its place.

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 with fully documented parameters, making it minimally viable. However, the lack of behavioral details (e.g., whether changes affect existing posts, permission requirements, or success/failure responses) leaves some gaps in the overall picture.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, though the schema itself is sufficient.

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 and resource: 'Update or rename an existing WordPress category'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create-category, delete-category, and update-tag.

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 usage context is implied: it is used when modifying an existing category. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites or related tools.

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