Skip to main content
Glama
alokemajumder

wpxmcp

by alokemajumder
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Delete content

delete_content
Destructive

Delete any WordPress content by ID, sending it to the trash for recovery by default. For permanent removal, set force and confirm to true to erase the row and its meta from the database.

Instructions

Delete content of any type. By default it goes to the trash and stays recoverable from wp-admin. Permanent deletion requires force: true AND confirm: true, and cannot be undone — the row is removed from the database along with its meta.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe content ID to delete.
typeNoContent type of that ID.post
forceNoSkip the trash and delete permanently. Requires confirm: true.
confirmNoExplicit acknowledgement, required only for permanent deletion.
site_idNoWhich configured WordPress site to act on. Optional — with a single site configured it is used automatically; with several, the default site is used unless you name one. Run list_sites for valid ids.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv2.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / minimum
      Added value: +1
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that content goes to trash and stays recoverable from wp-admin by default, that permanence requires force AND confirm together, and exactly what is destroyed ('the row is removed from the database along with its meta'). Fully consistent with destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false — no contradiction.

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?

Three tight sentences, purpose front-loaded in the first, with each sentence carrying distinct information: scope, default trash behavior, and the permanent-deletion path. No filler or repetition of schema text.

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?

Strong coverage for a 5-parameter tool: purpose, safety default, permanence requirement, and destruction scope are all disclosed. Minor gaps: no indication of what the response reports (trashed vs permanently deleted) given there is no output schema, and 'any type' leaves some ambiguity against the type-specific delete siblings.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by synthesizing the force/confirm interaction and spelling out the consequence of setting force: true (irreversible row + meta deletion), enriching what the bare parameter docs convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete content of any type') in the first sentence. The 'any type' phrasing differentiates it from the type-specific delete siblings (delete_media, delete_comment, delete_term, delete_plugin), and the trash-versus-permanent detail further clarifies what the operation does.

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 description implies usage through 'any type' and the permanent-deletion gate, but never explicitly says when to use this tool over siblings like delete_media, delete_comment, or delete_term, nor states any exclusions. An agent must infer that this is the generic content-delete tool.

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