List variations for a variable WooCommerce product by providing the parent product ID and site ID.
List variations for a variable product
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| product_id | Yes | Parent product 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: -[
- "product_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "product_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 and adds almost nothing: no mention of pagination, return shape, ordering, whether it is read-only, or what happens for non-variable products. A single read operation is implied by 'list' but nothing is disclosed beyond that.
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 compact sentence with zero waste and the key scope ('variable product') up front. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits return contents and pagination behavior, which an agent would need for a listing operation, but nothing is actively misleading.
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% (site id and parent product ID both documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clear verb (list) and resource (variations) with a scope qualifier (for a variable product). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like woo_create_variation or woo_get_product, but the verb+resource pair is specific enough to be unambiguous.
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 versus alternatives (e.g., woo_get_product to fetch the parent, woo_list_products to enumerate products, or woo_get_product_meta). The only implied usage is that the product must be variable, which is stated as a condition but not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.