Skip to main content
Glama

WordPress: Wp bulk post update

wordpress_specialist_wp_bulk_post_update
Destructive

Update multiple WordPress posts in one call by passing an array of post IDs with the fields to change, returning per-item success or error results so partial failures are easy to spot.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Fan-out update across multiple posts via stock REST wp/v2/posts/{id}. Pass updates=[{id, ...fields}] where each item carries the id plus whichever fields to write (status, title, content, excerpt, categories, tags, author, featured_media, meta, etc — anything stock REST accepts on the post endpoint). Returns [{id, status:'ok'|'error', error?}] — partial successes are the expected shape since per-item edit_post cap checks happen at the WP layer. S-26: 50-item cap per call; bigger payloads return bulk_too_large 400 without any HTTP. Concurrency is bounded to 10 in flight to avoid swamping shared hosts.

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>",
      "updates": "<updates>"
    },
    "name": "wordpress_specialist_wp_bulk_post_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
updatesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses the 50-item cap and the exact bulk_too_large 400 that fires before any HTTP, the bounded concurrency of 10 in flight, the fact that partial failures are normal because cap checks happen per item at the WP layer, and the concrete return shape. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs for a destructive batch call that annotations only flag as destructive/non-idempotent.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose, payload shape, return contract, then limits. Every sentence carries information, though internal shorthand ('S-26') and heavy backtick styling add mild noise without helping selection.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, non-idempotent batch mutation with no output schema and a near-empty input schema, the description supplies the return contract, partial-failure semantics, hard size limit, error code, and concurrency behavior. Only the 'site' parameter and post-type scope remain unaddressed, which is minor against what is covered.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema types 'updates' only as an untyped array, so the description must carry the load — and it largely does, spelling out that each item needs an id plus any writable stock post fields and enumerating them. The second parameter, 'site', is never described, which leaves one gap in an otherwise strong compensation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fan-out update across multiple posts') plus the exact endpoint it fans out to ('wp/v2/posts/{id}'). The word 'multiple'/'fan-out' implicitly separates it from the single-post sibling wordpress_update_post, so an agent knows the scope without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by describing the payload shape and the expected per-item success/error shape, which tells an agent this is for batch edits rather than one-off writes. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. use wordpress_update_post for a single post, or wp_bulk_term_update for taxonomy terms) is given.

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