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 mentions filtering and ordering capabilities but doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by 'per_page' and 'page' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no filters are applied. For a read operation with 8 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: one stating the core purpose, the second detailing filtering and ordering options. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy. It's front-loaded with the main action and follows with implementation details.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers filtering semantics well but lacks behavioral context about pagination, authentication, or error handling. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but other operational aspects remain undocumented.

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 substantial meaning beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains what each filter parameter does (status values, category ID, search term, on_sale flag) and lists valid orderby options. While it doesn't cover all 8 parameters explicitly (missing 'order', 'per_page', 'page'), it provides crucial context for the most semantically important ones.

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 ('products'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_product' (singular retrieval) and 'search_products' (broader search), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The description is specific but could be more precise about scope.

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 the listed filter options (status, category, etc.) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_products' or 'get_product'. It provides context for filtering but lacks clear guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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