Update a WordPress menu item's title, URL, position, or parent to correct navigation links and hierarchy.
Update a menu item (title, URL, position, parent)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | URL for custom links | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| title | No | Menu item title | |
| parent | No | Parent menu item ID | |
| item_id | Yes | Menu item ID | |
| position | No | Position in menu |
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: -[
- "item_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "item_id"
+]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 of behavioral disclosure. It signals a mutation but does not describe permissions, whether the update is partial or full, what happens to omitted fields, or any side effects.
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 phrase with no wasted words. It efficiently states the action and the main fields involved.
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 and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits required inputs, update semantics, permissions, and response behavior, leaving important context to inference.
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 schema. The description lists a subset of updateable fields but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides.
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 ('Update a menu item') and lists the fields it can change. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like mcp_update_menu or mcp_add_menu_item.
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, nor are any prerequisites or conditions mentioned. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.