wordpress-mcp

acf_delete_field_group

Delete an ACF field group from a WordPress site by specifying its site ID and field group key, removing the group and its fields.

Instructions

Delete an ACF field group

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>",
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "acf_delete_field_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	Yes	Field group key
`site`	Yes	Site id (see list_sites)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv3.4.0Oct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / site

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "key"
-]New value: +[
+  "site",
+  "key"
+]

First observedv2.0.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. For a destructive operation it fails to state that deletion is permanent/irreversible, whether associated field data or post values are also removed, or whether any capability/permission is required. It says nothing beyond the action itself.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single phrase is front-loaded and wastes no words, but at four words it is under-specified rather than concise. Length is not the issue; the absence of any operational detail is.

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?

A destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema should at minimum warn about permanence and side effects. The description omits everything an agent needs to invoke it safely, leaving only the schema to carry the definition.

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 description coverage is 100%: both required parameters (key, site) are documented in the schema, including a pointer to list_sites. The description adds nothing beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a specific verb (delete) and resource (ACF field group), and the verb alone separates it from acf_create_field_group and acf_update_field_group. However, it is a bare restatement of the tool name with no added scope, so it is minimum-viable rather than helpful.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this versus acf_update_field_group, acf_export_field_group, or acf_list_field_groups, and no mention of prerequisites such as first retrieving the key via acf_get_field_group. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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

Deploy Server