Find registered WooCommerce customers by name, email, or username to inspect accounts; guest checkouts are found in orders instead.
Registered customers, optionally matching a name, email or username. Guest checkouts are not customers; find those through list_orders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| search | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful domain semantics about what is and is not a customer, but says nothing about pagination behavior or the fact that limit defaults to 20, which matters for a listing tool. Annotations carry most of the behavioral burden here.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste, with the resource stated first and the exclusion second. The opening is a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase, which costs a little front-loaded clarity.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the entity boundary is covered. The only meaningful omission is pagination/limit behavior for a list tool with a default of 20 and no documented maximum.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does partially: 'matching a name, email or username' explains what the search parameter matches, which the bare schema does not. The limit parameter, its default and any bound remain completely undocumented in both places.
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 names the resource (registered customers) and the matching dimensions (name, email, username), and the tool name supplies the 'list' verb. It also draws a clear boundary against guest checkouts, distinguishing it from list_orders. Slightly short of 5 because the verb itself is never stated in the prose.
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?
It explicitly excludes guest checkouts and routes that case to a named sibling (list_orders), which is real when-not guidance. It stops short of a full positive when-to-use statement against list_orders/get_order beyond that one exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.