List terms for a WooCommerce attribute by site ID and attribute ID to retrieve attribute values for product management.
List terms for an attribute
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| attribute_id | Yes | Attribute ID |
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: -[
- "attribute_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "attribute_id"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but provides almost nothing beyond purpose. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether it paginates, what the response contains, or any rate limits. It is not misleading, but it is nearly silent on behavior.
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?
The single sentence is tight and front-loaded with the core action and resource. There is no wasted wording, though the extreme brevity leaves little room for structure beyond the core statement.
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 tool is simple: two required parameters, both fully described in the schema, and no output schema. The description is minimal but sufficient for correct invocation. It could be improved by noting read-only nature or listing scope, but the essentials are covered.
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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the implied 'attribute' link, making 3 the appropriate baseline.
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 specific verb and resource: 'List terms for an attribute.' An agent can tell it lists attribute terms, not the attributes themselves. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like woo_list_attributes or woo_create_attribute_term, so it falls short of 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions; the agent must infer everything from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.