Delete a WordPress post by ID. Moves it to trash by default; set force to true to bypass trash and delete permanently.
Delete a post (moves to trash, or permanently if force=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Post ID | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| force | No | Bypass trash and delete permanently |
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 the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that deletion defaults to moving a post to trash and becomes permanent only with force=true. However, it omits permission requirements, side effects on comments/revisions/meta, and whether trashed posts can be restored.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant filler. The parenthetical efficiently captures the conditional behavior without bloating the description.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only the trash-versus-permanent distinction. It lacks prerequisite permissions, destructive side effects, and guidance on choosing among sibling delete tools, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent.
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 the schema already defines site, id, and force. The description mentions force=true but adds no semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 specific verb and resource: 'Delete a post', with the post-specific scope and default trash behavior. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as wp_delete_page or mcp_delete_cpt_post, but the resource noun gives reasonable clarity.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description explains force=true behavior but does not say when to prefer this tool over wp_delete_page, mcp_delete_cpt_post, or other delete siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.