List WooCommerce customers for a specified site, filtered by role, search term, page, and items per page to support store customer management.
List WooCommerce customers
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| role | No | customer | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| search | No | ||
| per_page | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Input schema / properties / siteAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "site"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default role filtering, return format, or permissions. The only hint is the parameter defaults, but the description adds nothing.
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 description is a single short sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified for a 5-parameter tool. It is front-loaded but wastes no words; however, it fails to earn its place by omitting necessary detail.
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?
Given 5 parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about pagination, filtering, or the return structure, leaving the agent unable to invoke the tool correctly.
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 20%, meaning only 'site' is documented; the other four parameters (page, role, search, per_page) lack schema descriptions. The description does not compensate at all—it mentions no parameters or their meanings.
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 (List) and resource (WooCommerce customers), which is clear enough. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like wp_list_users or mcp_list_users, which also list users and could be confused with WooCommerce customers. No mention of scope or filtering.
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 such as wp_list_users or woo_get_customer. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.