WooCommerce MCP Server

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. It mentions the 'period' parameter but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., list format, data fields like product names and sales counts), whether it's a read-only operation, or any limitations like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and parameter options without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which should cover return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on behavioral aspects like data freshness or sorting criteria, and with no annotations, it doesn't fully compensate for these gaps, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.

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 value by listing possible period values ('week, month, last_month, year'), which the input schema does not specify (schema description coverage is 0%). However, it doesn't explain the semantics of these values (e.g., 'last_month' vs. 'month'), and with only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the incomplete coverage reduces this to 3 as it partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 action ('Get top-selling products') and specifies the resource ('products'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_product' or 'get_product_totals' by focusing on ranking rather than individual retrieval or aggregation. However, it doesn't specify what 'top' means (e.g., top 10, top 5), leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose it over 'get_product_totals' for sales data or 'get_sales_report' for broader analytics, nor does it specify prerequisites like required permissions or data availability. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.

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