wordpress_delete_page
wordpress_delete_pageDelete a WordPress page by ID. Optionally force deletion bypassing trash.
Instructions
Delete a page
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageId | Yes | ||
| force | Yes |
wordpress_delete_pageDelete a WordPress page by ID. Optionally force deletion bypassing trash.
Delete a page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageId | Yes | ||
| force | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without detailing side effects (e.g., permanent removal vs trash, impact on media or metadata). No behavioral traits are disclosed.
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?
While the description is short (3 words), it sacrifices essential information for brevity. It is under-specified, which hampers understanding rather than promoting efficient communication.
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 the complexity of deletion (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the operation's impact, return value, or preconditions, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description adds no meaning to the parameters 'pageId' and 'force'. It does not clarify what pageId refers to (e.g., ID from get_pages) or what force implies (e.g., bypassing trash).
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 'Delete a page' clearly states the action and resource. It is specific enough to indicate removal of a WordPress page, though it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like delete_post or delete_media, but the tool name 'wordpress_delete_page' already provides that context.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_post for posts, trash vs permanent delete). The force parameter is not explained, leaving the agent uncertain about typical invocation scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/RaheesAhmed/wordpress-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server