Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

WordPress: Update category

wordpress_update_category
Destructive

Modify an existing WordPress category by updating its name, description, or parent category to keep content organized.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Update an existing WordPress category. Can modify name, description, and parent category.

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>",
      "category_id": "<category_id>"
    },
    "name": "wordpress_update_category"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
siteYes
parentNo
category_idYes
descriptionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.13.1
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond a field list: it never says whether omitted/null fields are left unchanged or cleared, whether the update is partial or full-replace, or what the destructive risk actually consists of.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the mutable fields; no filler or repetition. It is efficient but arguably too terse for a destructive mutation, so brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being wasteful.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description should explain partial-update semantics, the meaning of site, and the return shape. None of that is present, leaving real ambiguity about how to call it safely.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it only names three of five (name, description, parent). The two required parameters, site and category_id, are never explained, and the null defaults on name/parent/description are left ambiguous between "no change" and "clear value".

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing WordPress category") and enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent can distinguish it from wordpress_create_category and wordpress_delete_category by name alone. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling update tools such as wordpress_specialist_wp_bulk_term_update.

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?

The phrase "existing" implies the category must already exist, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (site, permissions), and no routing to alternatives like bulk term update or the tag equivalent. The agent must infer the choice from tool names.

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