Create a term in any WordPress taxonomy for a specific site. Provide taxonomy, name, and optional slug, parent, and description to add categories, tags, or custom terms.
Create a term in any taxonomy
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Term name | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| slug | No | URL slug | |
| parent | No | Parent term ID (for hierarchical taxonomies) | |
| taxonomy | Yes | Taxonomy name | |
| description | No | Term description |
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: -[
- "taxonomy",
- "name"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "taxonomy",
+ "name"
+]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 behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool creates a term but does not describe permissions required, duplicate handling, hierarchy effects when 'parent' is provided, side effects on the taxonomy, or what happens to omitted optional fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient and immediately communicates the operation. It is, however, arguably too terse to fully earn its place.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain behavior for a six-parameter mutation tool. The schema covers parameters well, but the description omits safety context, permission requirements, and expected effects. It is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool without additional assumptions.
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 already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema fully carries the parameter documentation.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a term in any taxonomy.' It clearly distinguishes creation from sibling operations such as mcp_update_term, mcp_delete_term, and mcp_list_terms. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or clarify its relationship to specialized term-creation siblings like wp_create_category or wp_create_tag.
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?
The description provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent is left to infer that this tool should be used for creating taxonomy terms rather than updating, deleting, or listing them. There is no indication of when to prefer this generic tool over the category- or tag-specific creation tools in the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.