Frontman for WordPress

wc_delete_order_refund

Destructive

Deletes a WooCommerce refund record, not a reversal of a gateway payment. Ask the user for confirmation before calling with confirm=true. Mirrors woocommerce-mcp-server method delete_order_refund using local WordPress authentication; no WooCommerce REST API keys are required.

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_id": "<site_id>",
      "orderId": "<orderId>",
      "refundId": "<refundId>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "wc_delete_order_refund"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`force`	No	If true, permanently delete where WooCommerce supports forced deletion.
`confirm`	Yes	Must be true only after the user explicitly confirms this WooCommerce mutation.
`orderId`	Yes	The order ID.
`site_id`	Yes	The connected site's id returned by list_sites. Call list_sites first; do not use a URL or WordPress post ID.
`refundId`	Yes	The refund ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the deletion targets only the refund record and does not reverse the gateway payment, a human confirmation is required, and no WooCommerce REST API keys are needed because it uses local WordPress auth. It does not explain the trash-vs-permanent-delete distinction that force implies, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the scope-defining clause, then the confirmation requirement, then the auth detail. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive write with no output schema, the definition covers the safety-critical pieces: scope, confirmation gate, and auth model, supported by strong annotations. The main remaining gap is not stating what a successful delete returns or how trash versus forced permanent deletion behaves, which matters for an irreversible operation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces the meaning of confirm=true (must follow explicit user confirmation); it adds nothing about site_id resolution, orderId vs refundId relationships, or force semantics beyond what the schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Uses a specific verb and resource ("Deletes a WooCommerce refund record") and immediately carves out the scope boundary that matters most: "not a reversal of a gateway payment." An agent can distinguish this from refund creation, retrieval, and order deletion without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete precondition for invocation: ask the user for confirmation before calling with confirm=true. That is real when-to-use guidance rather than inference. It stops short of pointing at a sibling (e.g., reading the refund via wc_get_order_refund first) or stating when deletion should be refused, so it is not a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Frontman for WordPress tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.