Skip to main content
Glama

Frontman for WordPress

wc_get_product_attribute

Read-onlyIdempotent

Gets one WooCommerce product attribute. Mirrors woocommerce-mcp-server method get_product_attribute 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>",
      "attributeId": "<attributeId>"
    },
    "name": "wc_get_product_attribute"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
site_idYesThe connected site's id returned by list_sites. Call list_sites first; do not use a URL or WordPress post ID.
attributeIdYesThe product attribute 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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful authentication context ('local WordPress authentication; no WooCommerce REST API keys are required') but does not describe return shape, error behavior, or pagination.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose before explaining the authentication model. The second sentence is useful context rather than filler, though it could be trimmed slightly.

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 simple two-parameter read operation with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers enough to invoke the tool. However, with no output schema, it does not say what the returned attribute object contains or how missing IDs are handled.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at baseline 3 for complete schema coverage.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Gets one WooCommerce product attribute') and the word 'one' clearly distinguishes this from the plural sibling wc_get_product_attributes. An agent can identify the exact operation without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wc_get_product_attributes or wc_get_attribute_term. It only implies usage through the purpose, leaving selection guidance to the agent's inference.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.