Retrieve a customer's order history from WooCommerce by specifying the customer ID and site ID.
Get customer's order history
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Customer ID | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) |
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: -[
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "id"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose permissions, pagination limits, rate limits, or response format. It adds almost no behavioral context beyond the tool name.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and says exactly what it does.
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?
The core intent is covered and the required parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, without an output schema or any pagination/return-format details, the description leaves gaps that could affect how an agent interprets or uses the results.
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 100%, with both parameters documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already does the heavy lifting.
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: 'Get customer's order history'. It is distinguishable from woo_get_customer (customer profile) and woo_list_orders (all orders), though it does not explicitly name those siblings. Clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's intent.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The agent must infer that it is for retrieving one customer's orders by ID, with no guidance on when to prefer it over woo_list_orders or woo_get_order.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.