Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Frontman for WordPress

by io.github.frontman-ai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

wc_update_product_meta

Destructive

Product 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_product_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>",
      "productId": "<productId>",
      "metaKey": "<metaKey>",
      "metaValue": "<metaValue>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "wc_update_product_meta"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmYesMust be true only after the user explicitly confirms this WooCommerce mutation.
metaKeyYesThe metadata key.
site_idYesThe connected site's id returned by list_sites. Call list_sites first; do not use a URL or WordPress post ID.
metaValueYesThe metadata value. Can be a scalar, object, array, or null.
productIdYesThe WooCommerce product ID.

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?

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the key-creation behavior, the fact that only the FIRST matching key is updated, the user-confirmation prerequisite, and the local WordPress auth model. It does not, however, explain what makes the operation destructive (e.g., value overwrite/loss) or what the response looks like.

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 tight sentences with the core upsert behavior front-loaded ahead of the confirmation rule and auth note. No filler; only the 'mirrors woocommerce-mcp-server method' sentence is marginal for an agent's decision-making.

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 5-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the key behavioral questions: create-vs-update semantics, confirmation prerequisite, and auth requirements. Gaps are minor — return behavior and the handling of the multi-valued value type (object/array serialization) go unmentioned.

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 is already documented, including the explicit confirm gating semantics in the schema. The description reinforces the confirm=true confirmation requirement but adds no syntax or format detail for metaKey/metaValue beyond the schema. 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+resource ('Product metadata upsert') and clarifies the upsert semantics (creates the key when missing, updates the first matching key when present). The name and description together separate it from read/delete siblings like wc_get_product_meta and wc_delete_product_meta, though the description does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Provides a clear gate: 'Ask the user for confirmation before calling with confirm=true,' which is a real precondition for invoking the tool. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over related tools (e.g., wc_update_product vs. wc_get_product_meta first to inspect existing values), so usage is only partially specified.

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