wordpress-mcp

woo_list_attributes

List product attributes for a specified WordPress site to manage WooCommerce variations and filters. Provide the site ID to retrieve attribute names and details.

Instructions

List product attributes

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": "<site>"
    },
    "name": "woo_list_attributes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	Yes	Site id (see list_sites)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv3.4.0Oct 1, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / site
```
Added value: +{
+  "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "site"
+]
```
First observedv2.0.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read operation, but the description omits authentication requirements, pagination behavior, side effects, and return format.

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 a single, front-loaded phrase with no filler or redundant clauses. Every word earns its place for a simple list operation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what is returned and how the tool relates to siblings. It mentions only the resource and verb, leaving the agent without enough information to confidently select and invoke the 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 the sole parameter ('site') is already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline of 3 for full coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('product attributes'), making the core operation clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like woo_list_attribute_terms or woo_create_attribute, leaving the agent to infer scope from the tool name alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of related tools such as woo_list_attribute_terms. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling names.

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

Deploy Server