mcp-wordpress

wp_cpt_update

Partially update any WordPress custom post type by submitting only the fields that need changing.

Instructions

Partially update an item of any CPT. Only fields provided are changed.

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>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "wp_cpt_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key trait: partial update semantics ('Only fields provided are changed'), which is useful. However, it omits other important behaviors like permission requirements, error conditions, or how nested objects like 'meta' are handled.

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 a single sentence with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action and partial-update behavior, achieving maximum conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or prerequisites, and it does not mention how to use 'meta' or what fields are accepted. The description is too sparse to fully guide an agent.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It provides no details about any of the 8 parameters, including the 'meta' object, acceptable values for 'status', or constraints. The description merely says 'fields provided' without connecting to the actual parameters.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: updating a CPT item partially, with only provided fields changed. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wp_posts_update or wp_pages_update by targeting 'any CPT', though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for updating custom post types and emphasizes partial updates, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over wp_posts_update/wp_pages_update or provide exclusions. The context is implied rather than clearly articulated.

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

Deploy Server