A WordPress 7.2 AI client can fail to find custom content even when the post exists in the editor. Check the post type's ability exposure, the installed ability schema and the caller's permissions separately. Do not grant administrator access or make private content public simply to make an agent's query succeed.
This is a development workflow for the 7.2 beta series. The content-query contract has changed during testing, so preserve the exact build and inspect the schema your site actually advertises.
Confirm the content exists outside the agent
Create a synthetic published page and a synthetic item in the custom post type. Give each a distinctive title and record its ID. Verify both through an authorized WordPress view before invoking the AI client. This separates a failed import or wrong site connection from an ability problem.
Ask the client for the core page first. If that control also fails, inspect the connection, identity and ability availability before changing custom post-type code. If only the custom item fails, the registration and scope differences become the useful evidence.
Check explicit ability exposure
The core/content-query implementation introduces show_in_abilities on post-type registration. Custom types do not become exposed merely because their editor screens exist. The implementation enables post and page and otherwise defaults this setting to false.
Review the registration owned by the custom plugin. Confirm that exposing this type is appropriate for the integration and that its normal permissions are defined correctly. Opting a type into discovery is not permission to return every record or every field to every caller.
Capture when the type is registered relative to ability discovery. If a late-registration problem is suspected, create a minimal reproduction against the exact build. Do not turn an early ticket comment into a claim that every current beta has the same defect.
Use the current schema, not an old example
The development history includes changes to the query shape, author filter and date fields. In the current ticket, author filtering uses a where.author object; recent date-field work uses site rather than local. Old snippets can therefore fail before any database query runs.
Read the available input schema, request only the fields needed for the test and keep the page size small. Record the submitted input and returned error code. An invalid-field error is different from an empty authorized result, and both differ from an authentication failure.
Use separate published, private and raw-field cases to locate discovery or authorization failures. Synthetic explanatory visual.
Test identity without broadening access
Use a normal editor identity that should read the fixture and a lower-privilege identity that should not read a private fixture. Keep the requested record fixed while changing identity. Then keep identity fixed while changing published versus private content.
Compare rendered fields with raw fields only where the user is entitled to each. The implementation follows read/edit distinctions; a readable public title is not evidence that the same identity may retrieve raw private content. The required-capabilities guide explains why a discoverable tool still needs an object-aware decision.
Avoid placing application passwords in screenshots or copied request URLs. Record an identity label, the fixture ID, field selection and result classification instead. For a failure report, redact actual private text and keep only enough structure to show which boundary failed.
Check the client's interpretation of the result
If the direct authorized response includes the item but the agent says it found nothing, inspect the client's response handling. Check whether it expects an obsolete single-object shape, ignores pagination or rejects a field that changed during beta testing. Do not rewrite WordPress content to satisfy a stale client parser.
Repeat with one item, then a second page of known fixtures. A successful first-page result does not prove the integration handles a larger collection. Save the IDs returned at each page boundary and look for duplicates or omissions.
Acceptance means the custom published fixture is discoverable by the intended identity, restricted fixtures remain protected and the client correctly interprets the supported response. Request a WordPress integration review when registration and client behavior disagree. Keep the fixture for another check after the next release candidate or stable build.
Reference and review date
Primary technical reference. Sources checked October 29, 2026. The proposed procedures and original diagrams are explanatory test aids, not claims of customer testing or measured improvements.