wordpress_moderate_commentModerate a WordPress comment by changing its status to approve, hold, spam, or trash with the comment ID and action.
Moderate a WordPress comment by changing its status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Moderation action (approve, hold, spam, trash) | |
| comment_id | Yes | Comment ID to moderate |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / action / descriptionAdded value: +"Moderation action (approve, hold, spam, trash)"Input schema / properties / comment_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Comment ID to moderate"Input schema / properties / comment_id / minimumAdded value: +1v0.5.0Does 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 disclose whether trashing/spamming is reversible, what permissions are required, or what side effects (notifications, visibility changes) occur — significant omissions for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing guidance noted elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the schema covers both parameters. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance for a mutation tool that overlaps with update/delete siblings, the definition is only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, including the enumerated action values, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Moderate a WordPress comment') and hints at the mechanism ('changing its status'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from the closely related siblings wordpress_update_comment and wordpress_delete_comment, leaving the agent to guess whether moderation is a distinct operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use moderation versus update_comment or delete_comment, nor any statement of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage 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.