MCP WordPress CrunchTools

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Wordpress Create Comment

wordpress_create_comment

Add a new comment or reply to a WordPress post by supplying the post ID and content, with optional author details for anonymous submissions.

Instructions

Create a new comment on a WordPress post.

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": {
      "post": "<post>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "wordpress_create_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`post`	Yes	Post ID to comment on
`parent`	No	Parent comment ID for replies
`content`	Yes	Comment content
`author_name`	No	Comment author name (for anonymous comments)
`author_email`	No	Comment author email (for anonymous comments)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.6.1Oct 17, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / author_email / description
```
Added value: +"Comment author email (for anonymous comments)"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / author_name / description
```
Added value: +"Comment author name (for anonymous comments)"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / content / description
```
Added value: +"Comment content"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / parent / description
```
Added value: +"Parent comment ID for replies"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / post / description
```
Added value: +"Post ID to comment on"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / post / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
First observedv0.5.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not mention authentication requirements, whether created comments are held for moderation (pending vs approved), whether anonymous comments require author_name/author_email, or whether the call is idempotent. 'Create' implies mutation but nothing about side effects is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler — efficient and easy to parse. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, but there is no structural waste.

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?

An output schema exists and schema coverage is complete, so return values and parameter formats don't need to be restated. However, for a write tool with no annotations, the description omits moderation/auth behavior that an agent would want before invoking it.

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 100%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema itself (including `parent` for replies and the anonymous-comment fields). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which lands at the baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb (Create) plus resource (comment) plus target (WordPress post) — an agent can tell it apart from wordpress_update_comment or wordpress_get_comment from the name alone. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the other comment-mutating siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as wordpress_update_comment or the reply mechanism via the `parent` parameter. The agent must infer context entirely from the tool name.

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