Query WooCommerce orders by status, date range, customer, or search term, and return paginated results.
List orders. status e.g. pending/processing/completed/refunded.
after/before are ISO-8601 dates (e.g. 2026-01-01T00:00:00). search
matches order/customer fields. Returns a page plus pagination metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| after | No | ||
| before | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| per_page | No | ||
| customer_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only partially discharges it. It usefully discloses the return shape ("a page plus pagination metadata") and the meaning of specific filters, but says nothing about read-only safety, auth requirements, or rate limits.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action and then grouped by parameter, with no filler sentences. The backticked parameter references keep it scannable and every sentence carries information.
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?
For a zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it explains the filters it does cover and hints at the paginated return. It falls short by omitting the meaning of page/per_page/customer_id and giving no sense of default page size or result shape beyond "a page".
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, and it only covers three of seven parameters. It adds real value for status (enum values), after/before (ISO-8601 format with example), and search (which fields match), but page, per_page, and customer_id remain entirely undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("List orders") and layers in filter semantics, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_order or list_inventory, which is the only thing keeping it from a 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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_order or the other siblings, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the filter parameters, leaving the agent to infer that this is the bulk/collection retrieval route.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.