AutoWP MCP Server

update-post

Edit existing WordPress posts by modifying title, content, status, categories, tags, or excerpt.

Instructions

Edit an existing WordPress post

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>"
    },
    "name": "update-post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No	New tag IDs (optional)
`title`	No	New title (optional)
`postId`	Yes	ID of the post to update
`status`	No	New status (optional)
`content`	No	New content (optional)
`excerpt`	No	New excerpt (optional)
`categories`	No	New category IDs (optional)

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?

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain whether the update is partial (only specified fields) or a full replacement, nor does it mention authentication requirements, side effects, or error handling. This is a significant 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently without repetition.

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 complete parameter descriptions in the schema, the overall tool context is inadequate. The description does not clarify update semantics, prerequisites, or result behavior, leaving the agent uncertain about side effects. A mutation tool with no annotations and a minimal description needs more behavioral context.

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%: every parameter (postId, title, content, status, etc.) has a description. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the schema already provides adequate semantics, 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.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Edit an existing WordPress post' uses a specific verb (edit) and resource (existing post), clearly indicating the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like bulk-update-posts or save-draft, though the singular 'an existing' implies a single-post operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create-blog-post, bulk-update-posts, or trash-post. The description simply states the action without context or exclusions.

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