wordpress_delete_pageDelete or trash a WordPress page by ID; set force to true for permanent deletion, or false to move it to trash.
Delete or trash a WordPress page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No | If true, permanently delete. If false, move to trash. | |
| page_id | Yes | Page ID to delete |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / force / descriptionAdded value: +"If true, permanently delete. If false, move to trash."Input schema / properties / page_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Page ID to delete"Input schema / properties / page_id / minimumAdded value: +1v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive operation. It hints at two modes ('delete or trash') but says nothing about irreversibility, required capabilities/permissions, or side effects on revisions and child pages — all of which matter for a permanent delete.
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?
A single short sentence with no wasted words and the action front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for a destructive tool, but there is no filler or redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage the description omits critical context: permanence warnings, permission requirements, and what happens to associated data. It is not complete enough for an agent to call it safely.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%; both page_id and the force flag (with its default and delete-vs-trash semantics) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb pair (delete or trash) and resource (WordPress page), which is clear on its own. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling wordpress_delete_post, though the resource noun does that implicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus wordpress_delete_post or update_page, and no prerequisites stated. The trash-versus-permanent choice is left entirely to the schema's force parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.