Skip to main content
Glama
cvrt-jh

wordpress-mcp

by cvrt-jh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mcp_delete_menu_item

Remove a menu item from a WordPress site's navigation menu by specifying the site ID and menu item ID.

Instructions

Delete a menu item

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYesSite id (see list_sites)
item_idYesMenu item ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / site
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "item_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "site",
+  "item_id"
+]
  2. First observedv2.0.0

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 full behavioral burden. For an irreversible mutating tool it says nothing about permanence, required capabilities, whether the parent menu is affected, or any confirmation/rollback behavior.

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?

A single four-word sentence is economical and front-loaded, but for a destructive operation this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness — there is no substance to trim.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema needs to explain consequences and prerequisites. The description instead leaves the agent to reconstruct the tool's contract entirely from the name and schema.

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% and both parameters ('site' with a pointer to list_sites, 'item_id' as Menu item ID) are documented there. The description adds no syntax or format detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (menu item), and the 'item' wording does at least separate it by resource type from mcp_delete_menu. However, it adds nothing beyond an expansion of the tool name and offers no differentiation from mcp_update_menu_item or mcp_add_menu_item.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the clearly adjacent siblings mcp_delete_menu (deletes an entire menu) and mcp_update_menu_item. The agent must infer the boundary between deleting a single item and deleting a whole menu.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools