Retrieve detailed WooCommerce product data by site and product ID, so you can inspect pricing, inventory, and catalog information for a specific item.
Get WooCommerce product details
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Product 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, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not confirm read-only semantics, state permission/auth requirements, or describe what the returned payload contains. 'Get' weakly implies a read, but for a zero-annotation tool this is a significant gap.
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 filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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 two-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage, the minimum is met, and an output schema is absent so return values need not be spelled out. Still, with no annotations there is no disclosure of read-only status or auth needs, leaving the definition merely adequate.
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 coverage is 100% — both 'id' and 'site' are documented in the schema (site even points to list_sites) — so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond it, which lands at the baseline for fully documented parameters.
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 a WooCommerce product), which is enough to separate it from write siblings like woo_create_product and woo_update_product. However, it never contrasts itself with the closest alternative, woo_list_products, nor clarifies what 'details' covers (e.g., meta, variations, categories).
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as woo_list_products for browsing or woo_get_product_meta for meta specifically. The agent must infer the selection rule entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.