Delete a specific WordPress option using its site ID and option key to remove outdated or unwanted settings.
Delete an option
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Option name | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) |
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: -[
- "key"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "key"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses essentially nothing: no statement that the deletion is permanent, whether it requires elevated permissions, or what happens if the key does not exist. "Delete" implies mutation, but that is the only behavioral signal.
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 single short sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. There is no structure to evaluate because there is effectively only a fragment of content.
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, unannotated operation on WordPress options, the description omits irreversibility, permission requirements, and any side effects. The schema covers the two inputs, but the behavioral context an agent needs before calling a delete tool is entirely absent.
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% (both 'key' and 'site' are documented, including a pointer to list_sites), so the baseline is 3. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states.
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 verb ("Delete") and a resource ("option"), which is enough to identify the operation, but it adds nothing beyond the tool name mcp_delete_option. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like mcp_set_option, mcp_get_option, or mcp_list_options beyond the obvious verb.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., mcp_set_option to clear a value instead of deleting the row), no prerequisites, and no caution about deleting autoloaded or system-critical options. The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.