Update a custom post type post in WordPress by ID, setting title, content, status, and meta fields for a specific site and post type.
Update a custom post type post
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Post ID | |
| meta | No | Post meta key-value pairs | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| type | Yes | Post type name | |
| title | No | Post title | |
| status | No | Post status | |
| 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",
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "type",
+ "id"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It signals mutation but says nothing about permission requirements, whether unspecified fields are preserved or cleared, or whether the operation is reversible. For a write tool 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?
A single short sentence with no padding, so it is not verbose, but it is under-specified rather than concise. There is nothing to front-load because there is no substantive content beyond the verb.
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 seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the effect of the update and any required context. It leaves the agent to infer everything from the schema and tool name.
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 seven parameters (including the nested 'meta' object) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable but not additive; baseline 3 applies.
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 verb and resource ('Update a custom post type post'), which is more than a pure name restatement, but it does not distinguish itself from the nearby siblings mcp_create_cpt_post, mcp_delete_cpt_post, or wp_update_post. An agent cannot tell from the text alone why this exists alongside wp_update_post.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the required site/type/id trio. The description implies usage only via the word 'Update'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.