Frontman for WordPress

wc_update_product

Destructive

Updates a WooCommerce product. Ask the user for confirmation before calling with confirm=true. Mirrors woocommerce-mcp-server method update_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>",
      "productData": "<productData>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "wc_update_product"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.
`productData`	Yes	WooCommerce product fields to update.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior context: mutations require explicit user confirmation via confirm=true, and authentication is local WordPress auth with no WooCommerce REST keys needed. It still doesn't explain partial-update semantics or reversibility, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Short and front-loaded: purpose first, then the confirmation requirement, then auth context. The 'mirrors woocommerce-mcp-server method update_product' clause is largely internal trivia, but the auth note attached to it is useful enough to keep the sentence.

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 a free-form nested productData object and no output schema, one key behavior is missing: whether productData is a partial merge or a full replace, and what the response contains. The confirmation and auth notes cover part of the complexity but not enough for a fully self-sufficient definition.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only the confirmation workflow around confirm, and nothing about the nested productData object (which fields are accepted, whether it merges or replaces), leaving the schema to carry the load.

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: 'Updates a WooCommerce product.' Combined with the name, an agent can distinguish it from the many narrower siblings (wc_update_product_meta, wc_update_product_variation, etc.), though the description itself does not explicitly scope out those siblings.

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 a concrete operational rule: ask the user for confirmation and only then pass confirm=true. That is real when-to-use guidance for a destructive mutation. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. meta/variation update tools) or stating exclusions, so it is not a 5.

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.