wordpress-mcp

woo_update_product_meta

Update product meta data for a WooCommerce product using its site ID, product ID, and key-value pairs.

Instructions

Update product meta data

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>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "meta": "<meta>"
    },
    "name": "woo_update_product_meta"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Product ID
`meta`	Yes	Meta key-value pairs
`site`	Yes	Site id (see list_sites)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv3.4.0Oct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / site

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "meta"
-]New value: +[
+  "site",
+  "id",
+  "meta"
+]

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?

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and says only 'update'. It never states whether the supplied key-value pairs merge with or overwrite existing meta, whether values are replaced wholesale, or whether any permission is required — the single most important question for a meta-mutation tool.

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?

A single four-word sentence with zero filler and the verb-resource pairing front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined brevity.

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?

For a mutation tool on a nested key-value object with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin — it omits merge-vs-replace semantics and validation expectations that an agent needs before calling it safely.

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% (id, site, meta all documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the nested meta object, serialization of values, or key naming conventions beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 (update product meta data), which is unambiguous on its own. However it does nothing to distinguish itself from the read sibling woo_get_product_meta or from woo_update_product, so the agent must infer the boundary from the 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternative tools named, and no prerequisites. An agent is given no signal about when to reach for this versus woo_get_product_meta or woo_update_product.

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

Deploy Server