elementor-mcp-agent

delete_widget

Destructive

Remove a widget from a page with backup and confirmation. Deletes by widget ID and verifies removal.

Instructions

Remove a widget from a page by id. Two-call confirmation. Backs up before deleting; re-reads to confirm the widget is gone.

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": {
      "page_id": "<page_id>",
      "widget_id": "<widget_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_widget"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_id`	No
`page_id`	Yes
`widget_id`	Yes
`confirmation`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	Yes
`page_id`	Yes
`confirmation_token`	No
`backup_meta_key`	No
`css_flush`	No
`mutated`	No
`warnings`	No
`verification`	No
`widget_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it backs up before deleting and re-reads to confirm deletion. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists and annotations are provided, the description is mostly complete but could mention what happens if confirmation is missing or incorrect.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it only indirectly mentions confirmation and 'by id' for widget/page, leaving site_id and details unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Remove a widget from a page by id' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like duplicate_widget or move_widget.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It mentions 'Two-call confirmation' and 'Backs up before deleting; re-reads to confirm' which provides clear usage context, though it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it versus alternative tools.

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