wp-mcp-control-server

wp_create_menu_item

Add items to a WordPress navigation menu programmatically. Specify menu ID, title, and optional URL, type, object, position, or parent ID to place the item correctly.

Instructions

Add an item to a navigation menu

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": {
      "menu_id": "<menu_id>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "wp_create_menu_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`url`	No
`type`	No	custom
`title`	Yes
`object`	No
`menu_id`	Yes
`position`	No
`object_id`	No
`parent_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'add an item', but does not disclose that it requires an existing menu, that items can be of different types, or any side effects like reordering. This is minimal behavioral info 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.

Conciseness2/5

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

At 6 words, it is very concise but too under-specified. It lacks necessary detail such as parameter meanings, making it incomplete rather than efficiently brief.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return values, error cases, or how parameters relate to menu items, leaving agents in the dark.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation for any of the 8 parameters. Users must infer from names alone, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'an item to a navigation menu', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like wp_create_post or wp_delete_menu_item. However, it could be more specific about the types of items (e.g., custom, post_type) hinted in the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., wp_update_menu_item for modifications). There is no mention of prerequisites like ensuring the menu exists via menu_id.

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

Deploy Server