wordpress-mcp

mcp_create_menu

Create a new WordPress navigation menu for a specified site by providing a menu name. Use this to add custom menus for organizing site links.

Instructions

Create a new navigation menu

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "mcp_create_menu"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Menu name
`site`	Yes	Site id (see list_sites)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv3.4.0Oct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / site

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "name"
-]New value: +[
+  "site",
+  "name"
+]

First observedv2.0.0Jun 21, 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 burden and fails to. It does not state that this is a mutating write, what permissions are needed, that a menu is created empty, or that it must later be populated and assigned to a location.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized for a trivial create operation, though it is nearly underspecified rather than optimally concise.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the workflow context (create, then add items, then assign a location) and any indication of what is returned. It is too thin for the tool's role in the menu lifecycle.

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 two parameters (name, site) are already fully documented in the schema, including the pointer to list_sites. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (create a navigation menu), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like mcp_update_menu or mcp_list_menus, nor clarify the WordPress menu context versus other object types, so an agent gets no routing help.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no prerequisites. The agent is not told that a menu must be created before mcp_add_menu_item or mcp_assign_menu_location, nor that a site id is required up front.

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

Deploy Server