Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wordpress-mcp

wordpress-mcp

by cvrt-jh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

seo_delete_term_seo

Delete or reset the SEO metadata for a WordPress taxonomy term by providing the site ID and term ID.

Instructions

Delete (reset) the SEO meta for a taxonomy term.

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": "seo_delete_term_seo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTerm ID
siteYesSite id (see list_sites)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.4.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The parenthetical '(reset)' adds real information: it tells the agent this reverts SEO meta to defaults rather than removing the term, which is a meaningful behavioral distinction. It still omits reversibility, permission requirements, and whether the operation is idempotent.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the verb and target come first. It is arguably too terse for a destructive operation, but it is efficient rather than padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description should say more about effects and safety (what is lost, whether it is reversible, required permissions). It does at least scope the blast radius to SEO meta rather than the term itself, so it is minimally viable but incomplete.

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% — 'id' (Term ID) and 'site' (see list_sites) are both documented in the schema. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Delete'), resource ('SEO meta') and target ('taxonomy term') in one line, which distinguishes it from seo_get_term_seo and seo_update_term_seo by verb. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 sibling tools (seo_get_term_seo, seo_update_term_seo) that an agent might reach for instead. The agent must infer that this is the counterpart to the term-SEO get/update pair.

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