Update SEO metadata for multiple WordPress posts at once with progress tracking and error handling.
Update SEO metadata for multiple posts with progress tracking and error handling
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | No | The ID of the WordPress site to target (from mcp-wordpress.config.json). Required if multiple sites are configured. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.9.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions progress tracking and error handling, which are useful behavioral hints, but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or the return format. For a bulk mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and includes key behavioral traits without any waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a bulk mutation operation for SEO metadata, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details such as required permissions, what metadata fields can be updated, how to specify the posts, and what the progress tracking and error handling entail. No output schema exists to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the single parameter (site) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable when the schema already covers it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (Update) and resource (SEO metadata) with scope (multiple posts). It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like wp_seo_generate_metadata or wp_update_post.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The agent must infer that this is for bulk updates rather than single-post updates, and there's no indication of how it differs from wp_seo_generate_metadata or wp_update_post.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.