WooCommerce MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral traits: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it's cached or real-time, rate limits, or what the output contains. The description is minimal and misses key operational context.

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

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

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: the first three words state the core purpose, followed by parameter details in a compact format. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying necessary information efficiently.

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

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

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context and usage differentiation from siblings. For a reporting tool with 3 parameters, it provides basic operational guidance but misses broader context about when and how to use it effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'period' accepts values like 'week', 'month', 'last_month', 'year', and that 'date_min/date_max' should be in YYYY-MM-DD format, providing essential semantics not in the schema. However, it doesn't clarify if parameters are mutually exclusive or how defaults interact, leaving some gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get sales report' specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_order_totals' or 'get_product_totals' by focusing on sales reports, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is specific but could better differentiate from similar reporting tools.

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

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

The description implies usage through parameter details (period options and date ranges), suggesting when to use different parameter combinations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_order_totals' or 'get_top_sellers', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is contextually implied but not clearly defined.

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