Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Frontman for WordPress

by io.github.frontman-ai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

wc_delete_product_variation

Destructive

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

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.
productIdYesThe parent product ID.
variationIdYesThe product variation ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds useful context about authentication (local WordPress, no REST API keys) and the explicit confirmation gate, but it omits behavioral details like the default deletion mode (trash vs. permanent) and what the response looks like. With annotations covering the safety profile, the added value is moderate but not rich.

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?

The description is three focused sentences with no wasted words; the primary action and confirmation requirement are front-loaded. The final sentence about authentication is useful but slightly tangential to the core deletion semantics.

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 destructive mutation with annotations, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential confirmation flow and authentication context. It still lacks clarity on the default soft-delete versus permanent-delete behavior and does not route the agent toward sibling tools for related operations, leaving a modest completeness gap.

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 all five parameters. The description reinforces the `confirm` requirement, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for `force`, `site_id`, `productId`, or `variationId`. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Deletes a WooCommerce product variation.' This clearly distinguishes the action from sibling delete tools that operate on parent products or other entities. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with `wc_delete_product` or clarify that it targets a child variation rather than the whole product, leaving a small differentiation gap.

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?

The description gives an implied usage context (deleting a variation) and a mandatory confirmation protocol ('Ask the user for confirmation before calling with confirm=true'). It does not name alternatives such as `wc_delete_product` or explain when to use forced versus non-forced deletion, so the guidance remains minimal.

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