Delete an installed WordPress plugin after deactivating it; provide the site ID and plugin file path.
Delete an installed plugin (via cvrt-mcp-endpoints; deactivates first)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| plugin | Yes | Plugin file path, e.g. akismet/akismet.php |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Input schema / properties / plugin / descriptionPrevious value: -"Plugin identifier (e.g., 'akismet/akismet.php')"New value: +"Plugin file path, e.g. akismet/akismet.php"Input schema / properties / siteAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "plugin"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "plugin"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it does add one non-obvious behavioral fact: the plugin is deactivated before deletion. However, it omits critical traits like irreversibility, required capabilities, and failure behavior for a destructive operation.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical 'via cvrt-mcp-endpoints' is somewhat internal and does not help an agent decide or invoke, so it is minor noise rather than a scoring failure.
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 too thin. It should disclose irreversibility, permissions, and what happens if the plugin is active or missing, none of which appear.
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 both 'site' and 'plugin' are already documented, including the plugin path format. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3 for high coverage.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an installed plugin') and even notes the deactivation prerequisite. The resource is distinct from the many other delete tools in the sibling set. No explicit sibling routing, 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus safe alternatives like wp_deactivate_plugin, or when deletion is inappropriate. Prerequisites (plugin must be installed, permissions required) are absent. The agent must infer all usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.