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 lacks critical behavioral details. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, or what happens with empty filters. The description only covers filtering options without broader 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—a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality and key filtering parameters. Every word serves a purpose with no wasted text, 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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values) and the description covers most parameter semantics, the description is reasonably complete for a listing tool. However, the lack of annotations and missing behavioral context (like pagination explanation or authentication needs) prevents a higher score, especially with 6 parameters and no schema descriptions.

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 value beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'status' accepts specific values (pending, processing, etc.), 'customer' is a customer ID, and date range uses ISO 8601 format. However, it doesn't cover 'per_page' or 'page' parameters, leaving pagination semantics implicit rather than explicit.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('orders'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_order' (singular) or 'search_customers' (different resource), which would require explicit comparison for a perfect score.

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 like 'get_order' (for a specific order) or 'search_customers' (for customer-related queries). It only lists filtering capabilities without context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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