mcp-wordpress

wp_cpt_create

Create entries for any WordPress custom post type by specifying post type and title. Set custom fields via meta; status defaults to draft.

Instructions

Create a new item of any Custom Post Type. Required: post_type, title. Defaults to draft status. Pass meta object to set custom fields (subject to register_post_meta + show_in_rest registration on the WP side).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "post_type": "<post_type>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "wp_cpt_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`meta`	No
`slug`	No
`title`	Yes
`status`	No	draft
`content`	No
`excerpt`	No
`post_type`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must be self-sufficient. It discloses the default draft status and the meta registration requirement, which is valuable. However, it does not mention permissions, error handling, or the response structure, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two compact sentences, leading with the purpose then listing requirements and a key caveat. It contains no redundant or irrelevant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description covers the essential creation flow and the meta caveat, but it omits explanations for content, slug, and excerpt, and does not describe return values or failure modes. It is minimally adequate but not thorough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the main source of parameter meaning. It explains post_type, title, meta (with the registration caveat), and the status default, but it does not define slug, content, or excerpt, which are left undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Create a new item of any Custom Post Type' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wp_cpt_update and wp_posts_create by specifying 'any Custom Post Type' and the creation intent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit usage guidelines by listing required fields ('post_type, title'), default status ('Defaults to draft status'), and how to set custom fields via the meta object. It lacks explicit comparisons to alternatives like wp_posts_create, but the scope is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server