Skip to main content
Glama
cvrt-jh

wordpress-mcp

by cvrt-jh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mcp_create_user

Create a new WordPress user by providing site, username, and email; assign a role, set a password, and optionally send a welcome notification.

Instructions

Create a new WordPress user

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleNoUser rolesubscriber
siteYesSite id (see list_sites)
emailYesEmail address
passwordNoPassword (auto-generated if omitted)
usernameYesLogin username
last_nameNoLast name
first_nameNoFirst name
send_notificationNoSend welcome email

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / site
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "username",
-  "email"
-]New value: +[
+  "site",
+  "username",
+  "email"
+]
  2. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about required capabilities, side effects (e.g., welcome email sent by default), duplicate handling, or what the operation returns.

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 sentence with no wasted words and the purpose is front-loaded. However, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification for an 8-parameter mutation tool, preventing a perfect score.

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?

While the schema fully covers parameters, the description ignores behavioral aspects critical to a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. An agent would not know about permissions, email notifications, or return values from the description alone.

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 8 parameters including defaults and hints like 'auto-generated if omitted'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (Create) and resource (WordPress user), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the near-identical sibling wp_create_user, leaving ambiguity about which to use.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wp_create_user or batch-creation approaches. The description merely restates the action without context or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools