Create a WooCommerce customer by providing the site ID and email, with options for username, password, and billing or shipping details.
Create a customer
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| Yes | Customer email | ||
| billing | No | ||
| password | No | ||
| shipping | No | ||
| username | No | ||
| last_name | No | ||
| first_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Input schema / properties / siteAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "email"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "email"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and delivers nothing. It does not say whether this is a write to a WooCommerce store vs a WP user, whether email must be unique, whether a password is generated, or what the response contains.
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?
Three words is under-specification rather than conciseness; there is no structure or front-loaded information to speak of. Nothing is wasted simply because nothing is said.
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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, two required, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent lacks the information needed to invoke this correctly or predict its effects.
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 only 25% across 8 parameters, including two nested objects (billing, shipping) with no documented structure. The description adds zero parameter meaning, leaving most inputs undocumented in both schema and prose.
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 states a clear verb+resource ('Create a customer'), but it effectively restates the tool name 'woo_create_customer' with no added detail. It gives no differentiation from sibling creation tools such as wp_create_user, mcp_create_user, or the Woo Commerce customer read/update siblings, so an agent cannot tell what kind of customer this creates.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wp_create_user or woocommerce-specific customer handling. No prerequisites, no mention that a site id is required, and no indication of what happens if the customer already exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.