Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wp-mcp-control-server

wp-mcp-control-server

by mpierre135
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

wp_reply_to_comment

Reply to any WordPress comment as the site admin. Submit the parent comment ID and your HTML-supported reply to publish an administrative response directly.

Instructions

Reply to a comment as the site admin

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>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "wp_reply_to_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesParent comment ID
contentYesReply content (HTML allowed)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.3.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose side effects on its own. The phrase 'as the site admin' adds authorship context, but the description doesn't state whether the reply is immediately published, whether it requires an existing comment, or what the response looks like. For a write operation this is insufficient.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and object. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, important context is missing: the return value, publication behavior, and error conditions are unstated. Though the parameters are well documented, the operation's effects are not fully described, leaving an agent to guess about expected outcomes.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema already describes both required parameters clearly: id as parent comment ID and content as reply content with HTML allowed, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states the verb 'Reply' and the resource 'comment', making the core action clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like wp_moderate_comment or wp_list_comments, but the phrasing leaves little ambiguity about the operation.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives such as wp_moderate_comment or wp_list_comments. The description offers no context about prerequisites like an existing comment or admin permissions, and no exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools