Creates a new WordPress category by specifying site and name, with optional slug, parent, and description for organizing content.
Create a new category
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Category name | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| slug | No | URL slug | |
| parent | No | Parent category ID | |
| description | No | Description |
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: -[
- "name"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "name"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool, yet says nothing about permissions required, how slugs are derived when omitted, behavior on duplicate names, or what the parent default of 0 implies. It adds essentially nothing beyond the tool name.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but that brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. Size is not the problem; content is.
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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, sitting in a very large sibling set with near-identical category/tag tools, the description is too thin to let an agent confidently select and call it. It should at minimum state the taxonomy context and any uniqueness or default behavior.
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 five parameters are already documented in the schema (name, site, slug, parent, description). The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so the 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 specific verb and resource ('Create a new category'), which is clear on its own. However, in a sibling set containing wp_create_tag, wp_create_term, and woo_create_category, it offers no differentiation about which taxonomy or platform this targets, leaving the agent to infer from the name prefix alone.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that a site id is required and obtainable via list_sites), and no pointer to alternatives like woo_create_category for WooCommerce taxonomies. The agent gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.