Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Frontman for WordPress

by io.github.frontman-ai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

wc_delete_product_review

Destructive

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
forceNoIf true, permanently delete where WooCommerce supports forced deletion.
confirmYesMust be true only after the user explicitly confirms this WooCommerce mutation.
site_idYesThe connected site's id returned by list_sites. Call list_sites first; do not use a URL or WordPress post ID.
reviewIdYesThe product review ID.
productIdNoOptional product ID. When omitted, uses the global product reviews endpoint.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
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 destructive profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the auth model (local WordPress authentication, no REST API keys) and the human-confirmation gate. However, it never says whether deletion is reversible, what the default behavior is when force is omitted, or what the call returns, so key behavioral context is still missing.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the confirmation requirement. The closing sentence about mirroring the upstream method name and API-key requirements is only marginally actionable for an agent choosing and calling the tool.

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?

With five parameters, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, most of the burden is already carried by structured fields. The description still omits the irreversible-or-not distinction and any outcome/return information, which matters for a destructive mutation with no output schema.

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 every parameter including confirm, force, reviewId, and productId is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces confirm=true but adds no new meaning for force or productId; baseline 3 applies.

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 review." That resource name is narrow enough to separate it from wc_delete_product, wc_delete_product_meta, and the other delete siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 concrete procedural guidance for a mutation: ask the user for confirmation before calling with confirm=true. It does not cover when to prefer this over related operations (e.g. wc_get_product_review to inspect first) or when deletion should be avoided, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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 toolsInspect
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.

Resources