Permanently delete a WordPress media item by ID, optionally bypassing the trash to remove files immediately. Use it to clean up unused or unwanted media.
Delete a media item
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Media ID | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| force | No | Permanently delete (bypass trash) |
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: -[
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "id"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects associated files/thumbnails, or can be undone. The schema's force parameter hints at trash vs permanent, but the description itself adds nothing.
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 description is extremely brief (five words) and front-loaded, but it's under-specified rather than concise. It lacks the detail needed for correct invocation, so brevity here is a weakness, not a strength.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover safety, side effects, or differentiation from similar tools. An agent would need to rely on schema and assumptions, which is risky for deletion.
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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clear verb+resource: 'Delete a media item.' This is sufficient to understand the basic operation. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like mcp_delete_media, mcp_bulk_delete_media, or wp_delete_post/comment/category, leaving the agent to infer the exact scope.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. There are three delete-related media tools (wp_delete_media, mcp_delete_media, mcp_bulk_delete_media) and many other delete tools, yet the description offers no context on when to choose this one over alternatives or what prerequisites exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.