AutoWP MCP Server

upload-media

Upload images or files to WordPress from a local path or URL, with optional title, alt text, caption, and description fields.

Instructions

Upload media files to WordPress from local paths or URLs

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": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "upload-media"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No	Media title
`source`	Yes	Local file path or URL to upload
`altText`	No	Alt text for accessibility
`caption`	No	Media caption
`description`	No	Media 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the core action and supported sources but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, error behavior, or impact on existing media entries. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single, concise sentence that states the tool's purpose and key input nuance. No filler or redundant content.

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 straightforward, and the description captures its essence, but it does not mention what happens on success/failure, whether authentication is required, or any constraints (e.g., file types, size limits). Given the absence of output schema and annotations, additional context would improve completeness.

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 five parameters are documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'local paths or URLs' aligns with the source parameter but adds no extra detail beyond the schema, earning the baseline score.

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?

Description clearly specifies the action ('Upload'), resource ('media files to WordPress'), and accepted sources ('local paths or URLs'). It readily distinguishes this tool from siblings like list-media, delete-media, or edit-media-metadata.

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 usage for uploading new media, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives (e.g., edit-media-metadata for updating media, set-featured-image for featured images). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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