Retrieve a ranked list of top-selling WooCommerce products for a chosen site, with optional limit and period, to identify best performers and guide inventory or marketing decisions.
Get top selling products
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| limit | No | ||
| period | No | month |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about what is returned (product IDs? sales counts? revenue?), whether results are paginated, or how 'top selling' is computed. 'Get' implies a read, but that is the only inference available.
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 short sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than genuine economy. There is nothing structurally wrong, but nothing to reward either.
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 reporting tool with a required 'site', an undocumented time-window parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is materially incomplete. An agent cannot determine valid 'period' values or what the returned ranking contains without experimentation.
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 only 33%: 'site' is documented, but 'limit' and 'period' have no descriptions. The description adds nothing about the accepted values for 'period' (the default 'month' implies week/year/all-time options that are never enumerated) or the meaning of 'limit'. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ('Get') and resource ('top selling products'), so the agent knows this is a read-only ranking query. It does not distinguish itself from nearby reporting siblings like woo_sales_report or woo_stock_report, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus woo_sales_report, woo_stock_report, or woo_list_products. No preconditions, no exclusions, no mention of the ranking basis or tie-breaking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.