Create a new WordPress post for a selected site with a title, content, status, categories, tags, excerpt, and featured image.
Create a new WordPress post
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| tags | No | Tag IDs | |
| title | Yes | Post title | |
| status | No | Post status | draft |
| content | No | Post content (HTML) | |
| excerpt | No | Post excerpt | |
| categories | No | Category IDs | |
| featured_media | No | Featured image ID |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state required permissions, side effects, return value, or the significance of the status default and enum values like publish/private/trash, leaving important mutation behavior undocumented.
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 efficient, though extremely sparse for a tool with eight parameters and a mutation side effect.
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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should say more about permissions, side effects, and the practical meaning of creating a post in various statuses. It covers only the bare action and leaves an agent to infer the rest from structured fields.
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 eight parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation 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 and resource ('Create a new WordPress post'), so the core action is immediately clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like wp_create_page or mcp_create_cpt_post, nor does it clarify scope beyond standard posts.
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 alternatives such as wp_create_page or mcp_create_cpt_post, and no prerequisites or context are provided. The description only implies usage from its name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.