Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-server-woocommerce

mcp-server-woocommerce

by AmitGurbani
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_product_review

Read-only

Retrieve complete details of a product review by its ID, including reviewer email and verification status.

Instructions

Get full details of a product review by ID including reviewer email and verification status.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_product_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesReview ID
fieldsNoComma-separated fields to return (default: id,date_created,product_id,product_name,status,reviewer,rating,review,reviewer_email,verified)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. The description adds return-content context (email, verification status) but does not disclose error behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence that is directly informative, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple get-by-ID tool with high schema coverage and readOnly annotation, the description sufficiently conveys purpose and key return elements. It doesn't detail error cases or full return structure, but the fields param default enumerates available fields, and no output schema exists to need explanation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id and fields) are already documented. The description's mention of specific fields adds a bit of context, but doesn't fundamentally enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the action (get full details), the resource (a product review), and the identifier (by ID). It also highlights key included fields (reviewer email, verification status), distinguishing it from list_product_reviews and mutation tools like update_product_review.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies use when needing full details for a specific review ID. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the singular by-ID nature and sibling set make the context clear.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools