AutoWP MCP Server

delete-category

Remove a WordPress category by its ID. Optionally force delete to bypass the trash.

Instructions

Delete a WordPress category

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": {
      "categoryId": "<categoryId>"
    },
    "name": "delete-category"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`force`	No	Force delete (bypass trash)
`categoryId`	Yes	ID of the category to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Delete a WordPress category' without explaining side effects (e.g., what happens to posts in that category), permission requirements, or the meaning of the force parameter (bypass trash). This is a destructive action with minimal transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified and lacks any structural explanation of behavior or parameters, so while it avoids wasted words, it also avoids substantive content.

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 the destructive nature and the force parameter that implies trash behavior, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or the difference between force=true and false. The minimal text is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 both categoryId and force are documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter information, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema fully covers parameter meanings.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description clearly states the action (delete) and resource (WordPress category), but it essentially restates the tool name without adding scope or nuance. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools only by naming the resource, not by clarifying whether it permanently deletes or moves to trash.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete-tag or delete-post, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., category must be empty) or when to set the force parameter. The description provides no usage context.

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