AutoWP MCP Server

update-tag

Update or rename a WordPress tag by specifying its ID and providing new name, slug, or description.

Instructions

Update or rename an existing WordPress tag

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": {
      "tagId": "<tagId>"
    },
    "name": "update-tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New tag name
`slug`	No	New tag slug
`tagId`	Yes	ID of the tag to update
`description`	No	New tag 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 burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'update or rename,' which implies mutation but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., how renaming a tag affects posts, slug changes, or required permissions). The description is too sparse to inform the agent about consequences beyond the basic 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 sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately clear. Every word adds value, and there is no filler.

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?

This is a simple update tool with a well-described schema and no output schema requirement. The description meets the minimum viability by stating the core operation, but it lacks behavioral details such as effects on associated posts or reversibility. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 reflects adequate completeness with room for improvement.

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 has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, and each parameter is self-explanatory (e.g., 'New tag name', 'ID of the tag to update'). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, 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.

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific action ('Update or rename') applied to a specific resource ('existing WordPress tag'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-tag, delete-tag, or update-category. It is direct and unambiguous.

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 that the tool is for modifying an existing tag (as opposed to creating or deleting one), but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites. The context of sibling tools provides some guidance, but the description itself offers no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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