MCP WordPress CrunchTools

by crunchtools

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Wordpress Update Page

wordpress_update_page

Update an existing WordPress page by specifying its page ID and new values for title, content, status, or other fields.

Instructions

Update an existing WordPress page. To change part of the content, use edit_page.

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": {
      "page_id": "<page_id>"
    },
    "name": "wordpress_update_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No	New publication date
`slug`	No	New slug
`title`	No	New title
`parent`	No	New parent page ID
`status`	No	New status
`content`	No	New content
`excerpt`	No	New excerpt
`page_id`	Yes	Page ID to update
`template`	No	New template
`menu_order`	No	New menu order
`featured_media`	No	New featured image ID
`expected_version`	No	Refuse the write unless the page is still at this version (get_page)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.0Oct 28, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / expected_version

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Refuse the write unless the page is still at this version (get_page)"
+}

Changed13 schema fields changedv0.6.1Oct 17, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / content / description
```
Added value: +"New content"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / date / description
```
Added value: +"New publication date"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / excerpt / description
```
Added value: +"New excerpt"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / featured_media / description
```
Added value: +"New featured image ID"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / menu_order / description
```
Added value: +"New menu order"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / page_id / description
```
Added value: +"Page ID to update"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / page_id / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
- addedInput schema / properties / parent / description
```
Added value: +"New parent page ID"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / slug / description
```
Added value: +"New slug"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / status / description
```
Added value: +"New status"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / template / description
```
Added value: +"New template"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / title / description
```
Added value: +"New title"
```
First observedv0.5.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost no behavior: whether omitted/null fields leave values unchanged or clear them, whether content is replaced wholesale, what permissions are needed, or that writes can be rejected via expected_version. Only the edit_page routing hint adds behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and ending with the disambiguation rule. No filler.

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 the input schema is fully documented, but for a 12-parameter mutation with no annotations the description should at least state partial-vs-full update semantics and the expected_version guard, which it leaves entirely to the schema.

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 all 12 parameters (including page_id and expected_version) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, notably nothing about null/omitted field handling.

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

Purpose5/5

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 page') and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling wordpress_edit_page. An agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear routing rule: for partial content changes, use edit_page. It does not cover the converse (when update_page beats edit_page, e.g. multi-field changes), nor does it point to get_page/expected_version for the concurrency path.

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