wp-cli-mcp

wp_menu_item_add

Add custom links to WordPress menus by specifying menu name/ID, title, and URL for navigation management.

Instructions

Add a custom link to a 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": "<menu>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "wp_menu_item_add"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`menu`	Yes	Menu name or ID
`title`	Yes	Menu item title
`url`	Yes	Menu item URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a mutation, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure, which is insufficient for a tool that likely modifies data.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words, clearly front-loading the core functionality. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., mutation effects, error handling) and doesn't explain return values, making it inadequate for a tool that likely performs writes in a CMS environment.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool adds items to menus, which aligns with the schema but doesn't enhance it, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 action ('Add') and resource ('custom link to a menu'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like wp_menu_create or wp_menu_list, which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing menu), exclusions, or comparisons with related tools like wp_menu_create, leaving the agent without usage context.

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