Create a comment on a WordPress post or reply to an existing comment. Provide site, post ID, content, and optional author details for guest comments.
Create a comment on a post
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post | Yes | Post ID | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| parent | No | Parent comment ID (for replies) | |
| content | Yes | Comment content | |
| author_name | No | Author name (if not logged in) | |
| author_email | No | Author email (if not logged in) |
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: -[
- "post",
- "content"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "post",
+ "content"
+]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 behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about the outcome. It does not state whether the created comment is published or held for moderation, whether authentication is required, how author_name/author_email interact with a logged-in identity, or whether spam filtering applies.
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 five-word sentence that is front-loaded and wastes nothing. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate economy.
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, no output schema, and six parameters (three required), the description is far too thin. It omits the moderation state of the result, authentication requirements, and reply behavior, leaving the agent unable to predict the effect of the call.
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 every one of the six parameters is already documented in the schema with its purpose, defaults, and reply semantics via 'parent'. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Create a comment on a post"), which is unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from the many comment siblings (wp_update_comment, wp_moderate_comments, wp_list_comments), so the agent gets no help distinguishing it beyond the verb.
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. needing a valid post ID, authentication state), and no routing to alternatives such as wp_update_comment for edits or wp_moderate_comments for approval. The agent must infer all context 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.