mcp-wordpress

wp_taxonomies_assign_to_post

Replace a post's categories and tags by assigning new term ID arrays. Fetch the post first to preserve existing taxonomies when adding.

Instructions

Replace the categories and/or tags of a post. The arrays REPLACE existing taxonomies (use wp_posts_get first if you want to preserve existing terms and add to them).

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_id": "<post_id>"
    },
    "name": "wp_taxonomies_assign_to_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`post_id`	Yes
`tag_ids`	No
`category_ids`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the key destructive behavior: the arrays replace existing taxonomies. It also warns about the need to fetch existing terms if preservation is desired. However, it doesn't specify what happens when only one array is provided (e.g., whether tags are left untouched or cleared), which is a minor gap.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the core purpose and a usage caveat without fluff, earning a perfect score.

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?

While the description covers the main replacement behavior and gives a preservation strategy, it leaves ambiguity about omitted arrays and lacks mention of return value or side effects. For a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is a notable gap, warranting a 3.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains that the arrays correspond to categories and tags and that they replace existing values, adding important semantic meaning beyond the schema's parameter names and types. It could further detail that IDs are term IDs, but that's inferable.

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 it replaces categories and/or tags of a post, using a specific verb ('Replace') and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that create/update/delete taxonomy terms individually or manage posts.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly instructs to use wp_posts_get first if preserving existing terms and adding to them, providing a clear alternative. It also implies this tool is for replacement scenarios, giving contextual when-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server