Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Frontman for WordPress

by io.github.frontman-ai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

wc_get_customers_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves WooCommerce customers reports. Mirrors woocommerce-mcp-server method get_customers_report 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>"
    },
    "name": "wc_get_customers_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number. Default 1.
filtersNoWooCommerce REST API report filters to pass through.
perPageNoNumber of results per page. Default 10, max 100.
site_idYesThe connected site's id returned by list_sites. Call list_sites first; do not use a URL or WordPress post ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add real behavioral context by explaining the authentication model (local WordPress auth, no WooCommerce REST API keys required), but says nothing about what the report returns, how filters affect results, or pagination behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by an auth clarification; there is no padding. The clause about mirroring the `woocommerce-mcp-server` method name is marginally useful for parity and borders on meta-information an agent cannot act on.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries responsibility for explaining what the report returns (counts, signups, aggregate customer stats), and it omits this entirely. Combined with the missing disambiguation against `wc_get_customers` and the unexplained `filters` object, an agent knows the auth story but not the shape or selection criteria of the result.

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 all four parameters including the `site_id` prerequisite and `perPage` limits are already documented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and notably does not explain what the open-ended `filters` passthrough object accepts, where the schema is intrinsically weak.

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 ("Retrieves WooCommerce customers reports"), which is clear enough to know the general operation. It does not distinguish this from the similarly named sibling `wc_get_customers` (customer records) or other `*_report` siblings, nor does it say what a "customers report" actually contains.

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?

Gives no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to prefer `wc_get_customers` for individual customer records versus this tool for aggregate report data, and no conditions or exclusions are stated. The only contextual hint is an authentication note, which is not usage guidance.

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