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 but only mentions filtering and ordering. It lacks critical behavioral details: whether it's read-only, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with 6 parameters and output schema.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently lists key parameters in a single sentence. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating filtering from ordering). Overall, it's concise with minimal waste.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description partially compensates by detailing some parameters. However, it lacks behavioral context and full parameter coverage, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps for effective tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'role' options (all, administrator, customer), 'search' by name/email, and 'orderby' fields. However, it doesn't cover 'per_page', 'page', or 'order', leaving gaps. Baseline would be lower, but partial compensation raises it to 3.

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 ('List customers') and specifies filtering and ordering capabilities. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_customer' (singular retrieval) and 'search_customers' (broader search), though not explicitly. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_customers' or 'get_customer'. The description implies usage for listing with filters but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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