wordpress_cleanup_databaseRemove unnecessary database entries like post revisions, auto-drafts, spam comments, and trashed items to optimize WordPress performance.
Clean up database (revisions, auto-drafts, spam, trash)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutating operation ('clean up') but does not explain whether data is permanently deleted, whether there are any safeguards, or what other effects may occur. The listed categories give some context, but the lack of detail on consequences is a significant gap for a cleanup operation.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant or unnecessary wording.
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?
Given it is a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main action and categories. However, it lacks behavioral context such as whether the cleanup is reversible, how long it might take, or what the tool returns after execution. Still, it is minimally adequate for a straightforward cleanup operation.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so per the baseline 4 applies. The description and schema are aligned, and there is no parameter information needed since there are none. The description does not need to add parameter semantics.
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?
The description clearly states that the tool cleans up the database, listing specific content types: revisions, auto-drafts, spam, and trash. This is a specific verb+resource combination. It is somewhat distinguishable from sibling tools like wordpress_optimize_database, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast its scope.
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?
The description implies usage when wanting to remove database clutter such as revisions, auto-drafts, spam, and trash. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wordpress_optimize_database or wordpress_clear_cache, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.