Woodpresser

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete (trash) a post or page

wp_content_delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete WordPress posts or pages by ID, moving them to trash by default; use force=true with confirm='delete' to permanently remove them.

Instructions

Moves to trash by default. force=true bypasses trash forever and requires confirm:"delete".

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "wp_content_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`type`	No		post
`force`	No
`confirm`	No	Must be "delete" when force=true

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical nuance: deletion is reversible by default (trash) and irreversible only when force=true, which also requires confirm:"delete". This is meaningful operational context beyond the annotations, though it does not mention permissions or post-deletion side effects.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the default behavior before the force/confirm caveat. Every phrase earns its place and nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive mutation tool with no output schema and helpful annotations, the description supplies the key safety facts: default trash behavior, permanent deletion path, and the confirmation requirement. Only minor gaps remain around id/type semantics and broader usage context.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description must carry more weight. It adds important meaning for force and confirm (including their conditional relationship), but leaves id and type semantics entirely to the schema, which is only partially documented there.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a post or page'), and the title confirms the trash semantics. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling content tools like wp_content_get, wp_content_create, and wp_content_update.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly states the default behavior (moves to trash) and the condition for permanent deletion (force=true), which tells an agent when to use the force path. It does not name alternatives such as wp_snippet_delete or explain when to prefer trash over permanent deletion beyond the parameter behavior.

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