Frontman for WordPress

wc_update_customer_meta

Destructive

Customer metadata upsert. Creates the key when missing and updates the first matching key when present. Ask the user for confirmation before calling with confirm=true. Mirrors woocommerce-mcp-server method update_customer_meta 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>",
      "customerId": "<customerId>",
      "metaKey": "<metaKey>",
      "metaValue": "<metaValue>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "wc_update_customer_meta"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	Yes	Must be true only after the user explicitly confirms this WooCommerce mutation.
`metaKey`	Yes	The metadata key.
`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.
`metaValue`	Yes	The metadata value. Can be a scalar, object, array, or null.
`customerId`	Yes	The WooCommerce customer ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world, but the description adds real value on top: the upsert semantics, the 'first matching key' duplicate-key caveat that explains the non-idempotent hint, the human-confirmation gate, and the fact that it uses local WordPress auth rather than REST API keys. Return behavior is not described, but no output schema exists and the mutation semantics are the more important disclosure.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core upsert behavior before the operational caveats. The trailing note about mirroring the woocommerce-mcp-server method is partly redundant but does convey the authentication model, so it earns most of its space.

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 five-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, the duplicate-key edge case, the confirmation requirement, and the auth mechanism. Only error or partial-failure behavior is left implicit, a minor gap for this tool shape.

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, site_id, and metaValue is already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces confirm=true with the user-confirmation workflow and adds nothing about metaKey or metaValue formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 names a specific verb and resource (customer metadata upsert) and explains both branches: it creates the key when missing and updates the first matching key when present. The word 'upsert' alone would be tautological, but the following sentence removes ambiguity. It does not explicitly contrast with the get/delete meta siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It gives one concrete procedural rule, 'Ask the user for confirmation before calling with confirm=true', which is genuinely actionable. However, it never states when to reach for this tool instead of wc_get_customer_meta or wc_delete_customer_meta, and there are no exclusions or preconditions beyond the confirmation requirement.

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.