MCP WordPress CrunchTools

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Wordpress Update Comment

wordpress_update_comment

Modify an existing WordPress comment by ID: change its content or set status to approved, hold, spam, or trash. Use it to edit, moderate, or remove comments via MCP.

Instructions

Update an existing WordPress comment.

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": {
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>"
    },
    "name": "wordpress_update_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	No	New status (approved, hold, spam, trash)
`content`	No	New comment content
`comment_id`	Yes	Comment ID to update

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.6.1Oct 17, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / comment_id / description
```
Added value: +"Comment ID to update"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / comment_id / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
- addedInput schema / properties / content / description
```
Added value: +"New comment content"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / status / description
```
Added value: +"New status (approved, hold, spam, trash)"
```
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, and it does not meet it. It says 'update' but never discloses that this is a mutation, what permissions are required, or whether fields left null are preserved or cleared — a meaningful ambiguity given all three parameters are nullable.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded verb+resource, zero filler. It is terse rather than bloated; the shortfall is under-specification, not verbosity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the schema fully documents the parameters. But for a no-annotation mutation tool sitting beside wordpress_moderate_comment and wordpress_delete_comment, the description omits the safety and scope context an agent needs to choose correctly.

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% and each parameter carries its own description (including the status vocabulary), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which lands at the baseline for high coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing WordPress comment'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like wordpress_moderate_comment, which also alters comment state, or wordpress_delete_comment, so the agent gets no differentiation signal.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the competing wordpress_moderate_comment tool, which overlaps with status changes (approved/hold/spam/trash). The agent must infer from the schema alone which tool handles moderation vs. editing.

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