wordpress-mcp

mcp_delete_media

Delete a WordPress media item by site ID and media ID, using the force option to permanently remove it.

Instructions

Delete a media item

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>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "mcp_delete_media"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Media ID
`site`	Yes	Site id (see list_sites)
`force`	No	Permanently delete

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: -[
-  "id"
-]New value: +[
+  "site",
+  "id"
+]

First observedv2.0.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about whether deletion is permanent or trash-based, what permissions are required, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens to associated data—significant gaps for a destructive mutation tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It is appropriately sized for a minimal description, though its brevity is more a symptom of omission than of disciplined conciseness.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits critical context such as permanent-vs-trash behavior, permission requirements, and how it differs from sibling delete tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the 'force' flag with its permanent-deletion meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is the baseline when the schema is fully self-documenting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a clear verb ('Delete') and resource ('a media item'), so the agent knows what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like wp_delete_media or mcp_bulk_delete_media, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no alternatives. The agent must infer that this is for single-item deletion versus bulk deletion or the sibling wp_delete_media tool.

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

Deploy Server