Skip to main content
Glama

WordPress: Delete comment

wordpress_delete_comment
Destructive

Delete or move a WordPress comment to trash, with an option to permanently remove it.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Delete or trash a WordPress comment. Can permanently delete or move to trash.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>"
    },
    "name": "wordpress_delete_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
forceNo
comment_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.13.1
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the useful fact that the operation can be reversible (trash) or permanent, but never says which is the default, what happens to replies, or that repeat calls may fail given non-idempotency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The bracketed '[UNIFIED]' tag is dead weight, but the rest earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is an irreversible-capable mutation with no output schema and zero documented parameters, so the description should carry more. Missing: default behavior when force is omitted, authentication/site targeting expectations, and confirmation of what a successful delete returns.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, and the description names none of them. The trash-versus-permanent distinction clearly corresponds to the 'force' flag, yet the description never identifies the parameter, its default (false), or what 'site' and 'comment_id' expect, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb pair (delete/trash) and resource (WordPress comment), which clearly separates it from the create/get/update comment siblings. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds noise but does not obscure the purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Use is implied by the destructive verb and the sibling set, but there is no explicit guidance on when to trash versus permanently delete, or when to prefer this over other comment tools. The choice between the two modes is mentioned as a capability without any condition for selecting it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools