Create a new WordPress page with title, HTML content, status, parent, and menu order for a given site.
Create a new WordPress page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| title | Yes | Page title | |
| parent | No | Parent page ID | |
| status | No | Page status | draft |
| content | No | Page content (HTML) | |
| menu_order | No | Menu order |
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: -[
- "title"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "title"
+]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. It conveys only that this is a mutation ('Create'), with no mention of required capabilities/permissions, that the tool defaults to draft status, or what happens to the returned page object. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.
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?
One short, front-loaded clause with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with six parameters rather than being a model of tight, informative structure.
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 six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum mention that it returns the created page/ID and note the draft default. It omits both, leaving the agent to infer post-creation state and follow-up steps.
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% with 6 documented parameters (site, title, parent, status enum, content, menu_order), so the schema does the explanatory work. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline 3.
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 WordPress page.' An agent can identify it as a page-creation tool distinct from list/get/update page tools. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the closely related wp_create_post or mcp_create_cpt_post siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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 wp_create_post or mcp_create_cpt_post, nor on prerequisites such as obtaining a site id via list_sites. The single sentence gives context only by implication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.