mcp-wordpress

wp_taxonomies_update_category

Modify a WordPress category's name, slug, description, or parent. Apply changes directly to your site's taxonomy data.

Instructions

Update a category. Can change name, slug, description, or re-parent.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "wp_taxonomies_update_category"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only which fields can be changed, but does not mention partial-update behavior, error handling if the category doesn't exist, or side effects like URL changes from slug updates. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and scope. Every word is meaningful, with no filler or repetition.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, 0% schema coverage), the description is sparse. It fails to explain that updates are partial, what the return value is, how to indicate the parent category, or any prerequisites. More detail is needed for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It merely repeats the property names ('name, slug, description, re-parent') without adding constraints, formats, or clarifying examples. The phrase 're-parent' adds a bit of meaning to the 'parent' parameter, but overall it provides minimal value beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Update a category.' It lists the specific fields that can be changed (name, slug, description, re-parent), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like wp_taxonomies_create_category, wp_taxonomies_delete_category, and wp_taxonomies_update_tag.

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 usage context: use this to modify an existing category rather than create or delete it. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or mention alternatives, but the verb 'update' and the listed fields guide the agent to choose this tool when a category needs modification.

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

Deploy Server