Update SEO meta fields for a WordPress post by providing site ID, post ID, and the meta values to set.
Update the SEO meta for a post.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Post ID | |
| meta | Yes | SEO meta fields to set | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation but does not disclose whether the update merges or replaces existing SEO meta, what permissions are required, what side effects occur, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a write operation with a nested meta object.
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 appropriately concise, though its terseness borders on under-specification for a tool with nested object parameters and no annotations.
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?
Given a mutation tool with three required parameters, a nested meta object, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is not complete enough. It identifies the target but omits update semantics, permission requirements, and any indication of what fields can be set.
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 the input schema already documents site, id, and meta. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as valid meta field names or whether meta is partial. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Update') and resource ('SEO meta for a post'), making the operation clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like seo_get_post_seo and seo_update_term_seo by specifying 'post', but it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast its scope.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. The description does not mention related tools such as seo_get_post_seo, seo_delete_post_seo, or seo_bulk_update_posts_seo, leaving the agent to infer routing from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.