wordpress_delete_themeDelete a WordPress theme by specifying its stylesheet. Use force option to bypass safety checks. Cannot delete the active theme.
Delete a theme (cannot delete active theme)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stylesheet | 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 provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one key limitation (cannot delete active theme), which is important. However, it does not mention whether deletion is permanent, what consequences arise (e.g., child themes), or the meaning of the 'force' parameter. The disclosure is minimal but not misleading.
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 front-loads the primary action and includes a key constraint. There is zero waste or irrelevant information; every word earns its place.
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?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits information about what 'force' does, parameter formats, and any side effects. While the purpose is clear, the lack of behavioral detail and parameter semantics makes the description insufficient for safe and correct 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?
The input schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not explain either parameter ('stylesheet' or 'force'). The term 'cannot delete active theme' hints that 'force' might override a check, but it does not clarify parameter meaning or allowed values. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance.
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 the tool's function: 'Delete a theme' with a specific resource and verb. It also adds a critical constraint ('cannot delete active theme') that distinguishes it from other theme actions like activation or retrieval, making it clear this is the deletion tool among the theme-related siblings.
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 only usage guidance is the parenthetical 'cannot delete active theme', which implies the tool cannot be used on the active theme but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites like activating a different theme first, nor any exclusions for other resource types. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.