Frontman for WordPress

wc_delete_product

Destructive

Deletes a WooCommerce product. Ask the user for confirmation before calling with confirm=true. Mirrors woocommerce-mcp-server method delete_product 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>",
      "productId": "<productId>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "wc_delete_product"
  }
}

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.
`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.
`productId`	Yes	The product ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 real value with the confirmation protocol and the note that it uses local WordPress authentication with no REST API keys required, but it omits the most important behavioral question for a destructive tool: what force=false actually does (trash vs. permanent) and whether variations/metadata are cascaded.

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?

Three short sentences: action first, safety instruction second, authentication context last. No filler. The authentication sentence is the least essential but is still substantive context about setup requirements.

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 4-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety gate and auth model, which annotations support. It falls short on the outcome of the call — no statement of what is returned, whether deletion is reversible without force, or what related data is destroyed.

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 schema already documents site_id, productId, confirm, and force. The description reinforces the confirm=true gating, which is the one non-obvious semantic, but adds nothing about the trash-versus-permanent meaning of force beyond the schema's own wording.

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 and resource: 'Deletes a WooCommerce product.' That distinguishes it from the attribute/category/review/tag deletion siblings and from wc_delete_product_variation by noun, but the description never explicitly contrasts with the variation deleter or its get/create counterparts.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Gives one hard prerequisite — obtain explicit user confirmation before passing confirm=true — which is genuinely actionable. It does not say when to choose this over wc_delete_product_variation or wc_maint_delete_orphaned_variations, nor when deletion is preferable to trashing, so usage guidance is implied rather than complete.

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.