Create a new WordPress user by providing site, username, email, and password; optionally set display name and roles.
Create a new WordPress user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Display name | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| Yes | Email address | ||
| roles | No | Roles (e.g., ['editor']) | |
| password | Yes | Password | |
| username | Yes | Username (login name) |
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: -[
- "username",
- "email",
- "password"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "username",
+ "email",
+ "password"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the new user is emailed, whether password is hashed or set as-is, whether username/email must be unique, what default role applies if 'roles' is omitted, or that this is an irreversible mutating operation. 'Create' implies a write but nothing beyond that.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.
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 mutating, 4-required-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits everything an agent needs beyond the parameter list: auth/permission needs, side effects, and distinction from mcp_create_user. Not adequate for this complexity.
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 well-documented parameters, so the schema already does the work; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail (e.g. role values, username rules) beyond the schema.
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 ('Create') and resource ('WordPress user'), which is clear and unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the near-identical sibling mcp_create_user (nor from wp_list_users/wp_update_user/wp_delete_user), so an agent must guess which of the two creation tools applies.
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 note on prerequisites (e.g. which site/permissions), and no routing to the alternative mcp_create_user. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.