Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Frontman for WordPress

by io.github.frontman-ai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

wc_update_product_variation

Destructive

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
variationDataYesVariation fields to update.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which already flag destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, open-world), the description discloses two things the agent could not otherwise know: the mutation must be user-confirmed and it runs via local WordPress authentication so no WooCommerce REST API keys are needed. It does not say whether variationData is merged or replaces existing values, which is the main remaining behavioral unknown for a destructive update.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately following with the confirmation requirement. The implementation-mirroring clause is slightly internal-facing but justifies the no-API-keys claim, so little is wasted.

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 destructive mutation with full schema coverage, explicit annotations, and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what it does, the confirmation gate, and the auth model. The only gap is partial-vs-full update semantics for variationData, which matters for a destructive tool.

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 the confirm gate and the free-form variationData object) is already documented inline. The description adds no syntax, field list, or format detail for variationData beyond 'Variation fields to update,' so 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 and resource: 'Updates a WooCommerce product variation.' That clearly distinguishes it from the wc_update_product sibling and from create/delete variation tools by resource scope. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource noun does the disambiguating work.

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?

Gives one concrete procedural guideline: ask the user for confirmation before calling with confirm=true. It does not say when to prefer this over wc_update_product (parent level) or wc_update_product_meta, nor does it state prerequisites such as listing sites first, which the schema carries instead. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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