MCP WordPress CrunchTools

by crunchtools

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Wordpress Update Media

wordpress_update_media

Update WordPress media metadata by setting a new title, caption, alt text, or description for a given media ID.

Instructions

Update WordPress media item metadata.

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": {
      "media_id": "<media_id>"
    },
    "name": "wordpress_update_media"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No	New title
`caption`	No	New caption
`alt_text`	No	New alt text
`media_id`	Yes	Media ID to update
`description`	No	New description

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 / alt_text / description
```
Added value: +"New alt text"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / caption / description
```
Added value: +"New caption"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / description / description
```
Added value: +"New description"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / media_id / description
```
Added value: +"Media ID to update"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / media_id / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
- addedInput schema / properties / title / description
```
Added value: +"New title"
```
First observedv0.5.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

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 burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It doesn't say whether this requires auth, whether changes are reversible, whether metadata is replaced or merged, or what happens to unspecified fields. The only behavioral signal is the word 'Update' implying mutation, and no output information is given despite a mutation tool needing to describe its effect.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It could be slightly more informative, but it is appropriately sized and not padded.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema details in the description (though a schema exists), the description is far too thin. It omits usage context, behavioral traits, and doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations. An agent would need to infer most operational details.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters (title, caption, alt_text, media_id, description) with their meanings. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 for high coverage is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (WordPress media item metadata), which is clear enough. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like wordpress_update_post or wordpress_update_comment beyond the resource name; there's no mention of what distinguishes metadata updates from e.g. replacing the media file itself.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. It doesn't say when to use this vs. wordpress_upload_media (re-upload) or wordpress_get_media. No exclusions or conditions are stated.

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