Delete multiple WordPress media items by ID for a chosen site in one request, with optional permanent removal.
Delete multiple media items at once
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Array of media IDs to delete | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| force | No | Permanently delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Input schema / properties / siteAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "ids"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "ids"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that deletion occurs, but does not mention that the operation is destructive, whether the default force=true means permanent deletion, or what happens to items not in the list.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately brief for a simple bulk action, though its terseness contributes to the missing behavioral context.
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?
For a destructive bulk operation with a force parameter defaulting to true and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It should mention permanence or irreversibility, and ideally note the required scope (site IDs) to guide safe invocation.
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%, with each parameter (ids, site, force) documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states, 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?
The description states a specific verb (Delete), resource (media items), and scope (multiple at once), which distinguishes it from the single-item sibling mcp_delete_media. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative, so an agent must infer the distinction from the plural phrasing.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use bulk deletion versus single deletion (e.g., mcp_delete_media) or wp_delete_media. It also omits any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer use cases solely from the phrase 'multiple media items at once'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.