Update a WordPress comment by ID: approve, hold, spam, trash, or edit its content. Use the site ID and comment ID to change status or text.
Update a comment (approve, edit content, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Comment ID | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| status | No | Comment status | |
| content | No | Comment content |
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: -[
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "id"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies mutation but does not disclose required permissions, reversibility, side effects (e.g., what happens when approving or trashing), or any rate limits.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and examples. It is efficient and wastes no words, though it could be considered minimal for a tool with four parameters.
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 four parameters (two required), the description is too thin. It omits usage context, permissions, side effects, and differentiation from the closely related wp_moderate_comments sibling.
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 all four parameters. The description mentions 'approve' and 'edit content' which correspond to status and content, but adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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+resource ('Update a comment') and gives examples of update types (approve, edit content), so an agent can tell it's a mutation tool for comments. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like wp_moderate_comments, which also handles approve/status changes, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are named. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used for any comment update rather than wp_moderate_comments or wp_get_comment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.