Create WordPress custom post type entries by specifying site, type, title, and optional content, status, or meta fields.
Create a post of any custom post type
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meta | No | Post meta key-value pairs | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| type | Yes | Post type name | |
| title | Yes | Post title | |
| status | No | Post status | draft |
| content | No | Post content |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Input schema / properties / siteAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "type",
- "title"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "type",
+ "title"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation but does not disclose permissions required, side effects, default status ('draft' appears only in schema), idempotency, or what is returned.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Appropriate size for the purpose statement.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and six parameters (including a nested 'meta' object), the description is incomplete. It omits usage context, behavioral details, and return information, leaving the agent to infer critical invocation details.
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%, so all six parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline score of 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?
States a specific verb 'Create' and resource 'post' scoped to 'custom post type', which distinguishes it from standard post creation (wp_create_post) in the sibling list. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or note that it is not for standard posts, so it is clear but lacks explicit differentiation.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned. The description does not say when to use this instead of wp_create_post or mcp_update_cpt_post.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.