Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

WordPress: Create page

wordpress_create_page

Create a new WordPress page with HTML content, custom slug, parent page, status, REST-registered meta, and multilingual translation metadata to publish structured content via AI.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Create a new WordPress page. Supports HTML content, parent pages, custom slugs, REST-registered post meta, and generic multilingual metadata.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "wordpress_create_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
metaNo
siteYes
slugNo
titleYes
parentNo
statusNodraft
contentYes
languageNo
translation_ofNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv3.14.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / language
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / meta
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / translation_of
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv3.13.1
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  3. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and the description adds almost nothing behavioral beyond them. Critically, with idempotentHint=false the agent gets no warning that repeated calls create duplicate pages, and there is no mention of required permissions, the default draft state's practical effect, or what the response contains. The feature list mostly re-describes schema fields rather than disclosing behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a compact capability list; nothing is padded. The phrase 'generic multilingual metadata' is jargon that adds length without precision, but overall it is well within a reasonable size.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is thin: it says nothing about the required site argument, the draft-by-default status, or what identifier is returned for subsequent update/delete operations. The capability sentence covers roughly half the parameters, which keeps it at minimum-viable rather than complete.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: 'HTML content' maps to content, 'parent pages' to parent, 'custom slugs' to slug, 'REST-registered post meta' to meta, and 'generic multilingual metadata' hints at language/translation_of. However, it leaves the required site parameter unexplained, gives no format or expectation for translation_of (a page ID?), and never mentions status despite it silently defaulting to draft.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new WordPress page') and enumerates the supported feature surface (HTML content, parents, slugs, meta, multilingual metadata). The Page vs. Post distinction is carried by the resource name alone; the description never contrasts itself with wordpress_create_post or wordpress_create_custom_post, so sibling differentiation is left to the reader.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to pick this over wordpress_create_post for post-type content, no prerequisites such as authentication or site selection are mentioned, and no statement about what happens on repeat calls. The feature list implies capability but never routes the agent between alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools