wp-mcp-control-server

wp_create_post

Create a new WordPress post with title, content, categories, tags, and scheduling options. Set status to draft, pending, private, or publish directly from the MCP server.

Instructions

Create a new WordPress post

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": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "wp_create_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`meta`	No
`slug`	No
`tags`	No
`title`	Yes
`status`	No		draft
`sticky`	No
`content`	No
`excerpt`	No
`categories`	No
`featured_media`	No
`scheduled_date`	No	ISO or parseable date string to schedule publication

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv2.3.0Aug 31, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / scheduled_date

Added value: +{
+  "description": "ISO or parseable date string to schedule publication",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv1.0.0Jun 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic creation action and does not explain side effects, publishing behavior, status defaults, required fields, or what the response will contain.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is very concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, for a tool with 11 parameters and no annotations, the brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient completeness.

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?

This is a complex creation tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is a single generic sentence. An agent has almost no contextual information about required inputs, valid values, or expected output.

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 only 9%, so the description must compensate for the 11 parameters, but it adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not clarify the required title, status defaults, content format, categories, tags, scheduling, or any other input semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') with a clear resource ('a new WordPress post'). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wp_create_page, wp_create_product, and other creation tools.

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 about when to use this tool versus the many sibling creation tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions such as creating pages versus posts versus custom post types.

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

Deploy Server