wordpress_delete_postDelete a WordPress post or move it to trash using its post ID; set force to permanently remove it.
Delete or trash a WordPress post.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No | If true, permanently delete. If false, move to trash. | |
| post_id | Yes | Post 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 / post_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Post ID to delete"Input schema / properties / post_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 burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete or trash' hints that the operation is destructive, but it never states that force=true is irreversible, that trashed posts may be recoverable, what happens to comments/revisions, or what permissions are required.
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 efficient, though the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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?
The tool is a simple two-parameter mutation with an output schema, and the schema itself carries the destructive/reversible distinction. However, with no annotations, the description leaves the agent without any behavioral context about irreversibility or permissions, so it is only minimally complete.
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%, so both post_id and the force flag are already documented in the schema, including the permanent-delete vs trash distinction. The description's 'delete or trash' phrasing maps to force but adds no meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.
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?
The description states a specific verb (delete/trash) and resource (WordPress post), which cleanly separates it from siblings like wordpress_delete_page, wordpress_delete_media, and wordpress_update_post. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with any sibling tool.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor on prerequisites such as required post permissions or whether the post must exist. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.