Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

WordPress: Create taxonomy term

wordpress_create_taxonomy_term

Create a new taxonomy term in WordPress, including hierarchical parent terms, to organize content across any registered taxonomy.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Create a new term in a taxonomy. Supports hierarchical taxonomies with parent terms. Works with any registered taxonomy.

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>",
      "taxonomy": "<taxonomy>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "wordpress_create_taxonomy_term"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
siteYes
parentNo
languageNo
taxonomyYes
descriptionNo
translation_ofNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.14.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / language
      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
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds that hierarchical taxonomies are supported via parent terms, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However it says nothing about duplicate-name behavior, required capabilities, or failure modes for a non-idempotent create.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the remaining sentences are thin rather than dense with information.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with zero schema description coverage, no output schema, and only safety annotations, this description is under-specified. An agent cannot tell what most parameters mean or what happens when a term already exists, which matters because the tool is explicitly non-idempotent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the burden, and it only gestures at 'parent' and 'taxonomy'. It says nothing about site, name, description, language, or translation_of, leaving half the inputs undocumented anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Create a new term in a taxonomy') and notes it works with any registered taxonomy, including hierarchical ones. It is clear what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling wrappers like wordpress_create_category or wordpress_create_tag, so an agent must infer the relationship.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The phrase 'Works with any registered taxonomy' faintly implies this is the generic option versus the category/tag-specific siblings, but the agent is left to infer that routing decision entirely.

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