Delete a custom post type post from WordPress by site, type, and ID; use force to permanently delete instead of trash.
Delete a custom post type post
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Post ID | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| type | Yes | Post type name | |
| force | No | Skip trash and 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: -[
- "type",
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "type",
+ "id"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls well short: it never states that deletion is destructive/irreversible, whether the item goes to trash by default, or what permissions are required. The trash-vs-permanent distinction exists only in the schema's force field, not in the description.
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 zero waste, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy. It is front-loaded but says almost nothing.
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 4-parameter destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least cover deletion semantics and side effects. It omits any mention of trash vs permanent deletion, required capability, or the shape of a successful response.
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 the schema already documents id, site, type, and force (including 'Skip trash and permanently delete'). The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond that, giving the baseline 3.
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 and resource ('Delete a custom post type post') and aligns with its sibling family (mcp_list_cpt_posts, mcp_create_cpt_post, mcp_update_cpt_post). It does not explicitly contrast itself with wp_delete_post, which deletes standard posts, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to the alternative (e.g., trashing via update, or listing an ID via mcp_list_cpt_posts) before deletion. An agent gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.