Update an existing WordPress page by site and page ID, with optional changes to title, HTML content, status, parent, or menu order.
Update an existing page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Page ID | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| title | No | Page title | |
| parent | No | Parent page ID | |
| status | No | Page status | |
| 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: -[
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "id"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a mutation via 'Update'. It does not disclose authorization requirements, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, how the 'status' enum (including 'trash') affects deletion, or what happens on invalid IDs.
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 phrase with zero wasted words. It is efficient, though it does not attempt to structure or convey any supplementary context.
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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits critical behavioral context such as authentication, partial-update semantics, side effects of status changes, and return behavior, leaving the agent to infer too much.
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 seven parameters are already documented in the input schema, including the site reference and status enum. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers the 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 and resource ('Update an existing page'), which clearly separates it from wp_create_page and wp_delete_page. It does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like wp_update_post or wp_update_cpt_post, but the resource noun is specific enough for an agent to select it.
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 provided. The phrase 'existing page' hints that it is for modifying rather than creating, but there is no explicit instruction on when to choose this over wp_update_post or how to handle missing pages.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.