wordpress_publish_post
wordpress_publish_postPublish a draft or pending WordPress post by providing its post ID.
Instructions
Publish a draft or pending post immediately
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| postId | Yes |
wordpress_publish_postPublish a draft or pending WordPress post by providing its post ID.
Publish a draft or pending post immediately
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| postId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the core action (publishing) but omits details like whether it requires special permissions, whether it is reversible, what happens if the post is already published or invalid, and what response is returned. This is a significant gap for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that fully conveys the action without redundant words. It earns its place and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose but leaves out contextual details such as expected return value, error conditions, and side effects. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter (postId) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the parameter at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory as a post identifier, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Publish a draft or pending post immediately' uses a specific verb (publish) and resource (post), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, update, delete, or schedule. It precisely identifies the action and the eligible post statuses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a draft or pending post should become public immediately, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as wordpress_schedule_post for future publishing or wordpress_update_post for changing status along with other edits. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.