wordpress-mcp

seo_update_redirect

Update an existing redirect by ID for a specified WordPress site, changing its fields as needed.

Instructions

Update a redirect by id.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "redirect": "<redirect>"
    },
    "name": "seo_update_redirect"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Redirect ID
`site`	Yes	Site id (see list_sites)
`redirect`	Yes	Redirect fields to change

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv3.4.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: it doesn't state whether unspecified redirect fields are preserved or cleared, whether the site/id must already exist, or what a successful update returns. 'Update' implies mutation, but the semantics of a partial update over a free-form nested object are left entirely unexplained.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the verb and lookup key front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a free-form nested object parameter ('redirect' with additionalProperties {}), which is exactly the case where the description must explain accepted fields and update semantics. None of that is present, so the definition is incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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%, with each parameter documented in the schema (Redirect ID, Site id (see list_sites), Redirect fields to change), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's only parameter hint, 'by id', merely restates what the schema already says.

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 (update) and resource (redirect) plus the lookup key (by id), so the purpose is unambiguous. However, it does no sibling differentiation despite seo_create_redirect, seo_get_redirect, and seo_delete_redirect sitting alongside it, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the related tools (seo_get_redirect to inspect first, seo_create_redirect instead of updating). The agent gets no context for choosing this over its siblings.

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

Deploy Server