Request: Add Taxonomy Attribute Filters to useSearchProducts

Shop Minis
1

I’m building a Minis app that relies on accurate product recommendations, and I’m running into limits with the current useSearchProducts hook.

Today the hook only supports a small set of filters (category, gender, color, price, etc.), but it does not expose any of the deeper product taxonomy attributes that exist in Shopify’s main GraphQL API.

For example:

  • Toys → Recommended Age Group

  • Puzzles → Difficulty Level

  • Many categories → additional structured attributes + values

These attributes are essential for meaningful filtering, especially for recommendation-driven Minis. Because they aren’t available in the hook, it’s hard to return relevant results for specific use cases (kids’ gifts, skill-level filtering, hobby-based recommendations, etc.).

Feature request:
Please allow useSearchProducts to accept taxonomy attributes/values (similar to the GraphQL API), even in a simplified form.
Something like attributes: [{ attributeId, valueId }] would already unlock much more precise recommendations while staying consistent with Shopify’s data model.

Would love to know if this is planned or could be added.

2

Hi @ross.igolkin , thanks for the feedback, both APIs work differently at the moment, we’ll consider improvements in future updates but unfortunately we cannot provide ETA on this topic

3

Hi, just chiming in to echo this sentiment. These taxonomy attributes are incredibly valuable for recommendation based Minis.

The current documentation for Minis isn’t clear about whether or not these Taxonomy Attributes are accessible. This is compounded a bit because “Color” is a Taxonomy Attribute of Apparel, and filtering by color is demonstrated in the examples repo here –

Without digging into ProductFilters in the shop-minis-platform code, there’s no way to actually get a sense for what items we can filter by. At the very least, please make this more easily accessible in the documentation.

4

We are aware that the current search is not where we want to be - we are tracking this internally and I added all of your feedback (internal ticked id #124887)