Batch update WordPress comment statuses to approve, hold, spam, or trash selected comment IDs for a specific site.
Batch moderate comments by status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Comment IDs | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| status | Yes | New status |
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: -[
- "ids",
- "status"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "ids",
+ "status"
+]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 says only that comments are moderated in batch by status, without disclosing permission needs, reversibility, partial-failure behavior, or the meaning of destructive statuses such as spam/trash.
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 phrase with no wasted words. It is very terse, but structurally efficient and directly states the core action.
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 batch mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits behavioral, permission, and failure-mode context that an agent would need to invoke it safely.
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 the schema already documents site, ids, and status. The description only echoes 'status' in passing and adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the structured fields.
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 (moderate), resource (comments), and batch scope, which separates it from single-comment update tools like wp_update_comment. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with the closest siblings.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. It does not explain when to choose batch moderation versus wp_update_comment, wp_delete_comment, or individual comment-status changes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.