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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes 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 fails to explain key aspects such as whether deletion is permanent or moves to trash, the role of the 'force' parameter, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a destructive 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?
While the description is concise at three words, it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It lacks essential context that a deletion tool with a force parameter requires, so brevity works against clarity.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and two required parameters including a boolean 'force', the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, the effect of 'force', or any consequences, making it insufficient for reliable tool invocation.
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 description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. The agent must infer that 'pageId' is the page identifier and 'force' likely controls trash vs permanent deletion, but no explicit clarification is provided.
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' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like wordpress_delete_post and wordpress_delete_media. It unambiguously states the operation performed.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.