AutoWP MCP Server

delete-tag

Delete a WordPress tag by its ID, optionally bypassing the trash with force delete.

Instructions

Delete a WordPress tag

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": {
      "tagId": "<tagId>"
    },
    "name": "delete-tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It simply says 'Delete a WordPress tag' without mentioning that a standard delete may move the tag to trash, that 'force' bypasses trash, or any potential side effects. The schema hints at trash behavior via the 'force' description, but the main description is silent.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary detail, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple, but the description omits important behavioral context such as the trash workflow and the effect of 'force'. Since there is no output schema or annotations, the description should have elaborated on these nuances to ensure safe and correct usage. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of the parameters: 'tagId' is described as the ID of the tag to delete, and 'force' as 'Force delete (bypass trash)'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Delete') and the resource ('WordPress tag'), which is specific and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like delete-post or delete-category. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer trash-post or delete-category. It also does not explain the significance of the 'force' parameter or when a normal delete might send the tag to trash.

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