Skip to main content
Glama

WordPress: Wp transient delete all

wordpress_wp_transient_delete_all
Destructive

Deletes expired WordPress transients through the companion plugin, clearing stale cached data so you can run routine cleanup on a specified site.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Delete expired WordPress transients through the companion plugin. This mirrors the legacy tool's expired-only cleanup semantics.

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>"
    },
    "name": "wordpress_wp_transient_delete_all"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes

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

B3.3/5.0
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 covered. The description adds that only expired entries are removed and that it depends on the companion plugin, but says nothing about return values, counts deleted, or auth requirements.

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. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix and the reference to the legacy tool are internal jargon but carry little waste.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is thin: it omits the site parameter's format, states the plugin dependency only vaguely, and describes no result behavior.

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 coverage is 0% — the single 'site' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description does not say whether 'site' is a slug, URL, or ID, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap. With only one obvious required parameter the practical risk is limited, hence not lower.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Delete expired WordPress transients') and adds the execution channel ('through the companion plugin'). It also clarifies scope ('expired-only cleanup semantics'), which distinguishes it from a full flush, though it doesn't explicitly name wordpress_transient_flush as the alternative.

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?

The 'expired-only' qualifier implies usage (cleanup of stale transients) and implicitly contrasts with a full flush, but no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative is given.

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