Modify an existing WordPress post by ID, changing its title, content, excerpt, or status. Use it to correct or republish content directly through the REST API.
Update a WordPress post by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Post ID | |
| title | No | Post title | |
| status | No | Post status | |
| content | No | Post content | |
| excerpt | No | Post excerpt |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost none of it. 'Update' implies mutation but there is no word on required capabilities, whether this is a partial or full-replacement update, what happens to fields not supplied, or what the response contains.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, and the mutation and identifier are front-loaded. It is efficient but so terse that it arguably under-serves a five-parameter mutation tool.
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?
For a write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters, the definition omits permission requirements, partial-update semantics, and return shape. The 100% schema coverage covers parameter naming but not the operational context an agent needs.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (id, title, status, content, excerpt) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the 'by ID' lookup framing, which is marginal value over the schema.
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?
States a specific verb (update) and resource (WordPress post) plus the lookup key (by ID). It is clearly distinguishable from wp_add_post, wp_delete_post, and wp_update_page by resource noun, though it never explicitly names those siblings.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as wp_add_post for creation or wp_get_post for reading. The agent must infer the calling context entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.