Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-server-woocommerce

mcp-server-woocommerce

by AmitGurbani
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_product_review

Idempotent

Update a product review to change its status (approved, hold, spam, trash), edit the review text, or modify the rating.

Instructions

Update a product review. Use to change status (approve/hold/spam/trash), edit review text, or modify rating.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_product_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesReview ID
fieldsNoComma-separated fields to return in response
ratingNoReview rating (0-5)
reviewNoReview content (HTML allowed)
statusNoReview status

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the idempotentHint annotation. It notes that HTML is allowed in review content, but that is already in the schema. No contradiction with annotations; the description is safe but shallow.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word earns its place. No redundancy or boilerplate.

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 simple update tool, the description adequately covers the main use cases and is complemented by full parameter documentation and an idempotency annotation. It could mention response behavior, but that is not critical given the context.

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 coverage is 100%, with all parameters described. The description only restates the three main fields without adding detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function as updating a product review and lists specific supported actions (status, text, rating). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_product_review and update_product.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool by enumerating the three categories of changes (status, text, rating). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear that this is for modifications, not deletion or retrieval.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools