mcp-wordpress

wp_taxonomies_create_category

Create a blog category with optional parent, slug, and description. Name is required; slug auto-generates from name if omitted.

Instructions

Create a new blog category. Supports hierarchy via parent (category id). The name is required; slug auto-generated from name if omitted.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "wp_taxonomies_create_category"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`slug`	No
`parent`	No
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains hierarchy via parent ID and auto-slug generation, but does not mention required permissions, error conditions, or side effects. This is partial transparency, not full.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds functional information without redundancy or fluff.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides key behavioral details (required name, auto-slug, parent hierarchy) but omits return format and potential failure modes. It is sufficient for selection and basic invocation, though not exhaustive.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains name (required), slug (auto-generated if omitted), and parent (category id), covering 3 of 4 parameters. The 'description' parameter is not addressed, so it adds significant but not complete semantic value.

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 blog category' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_tag, update_category, or delete_category. The scope is unambiguous.

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 implies the use case—creating a new category—and provides context about hierarchy and slug generation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the verb 'Create' makes the intended scenario clear.

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

Deploy Server