Fetch and filter WooCommerce products by search term, exact SKU, stock status, or category to view price and stock details.
Products with price and stock. Filter by a search term, an exact SKU, stock_status (instock, outofstock, onbackorder) or a category (id or name).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| stock_status | 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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that results include price and stock, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, default result size, or ordering — relevant for a listing tool with a limit parameter.
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 sentences, zero padding. The return fields come first and the filter options follow, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.
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?
With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering the return shape, the description supplies the remaining decision-critical details — filter semantics and accepted values. The gap is the undocumented limit parameter and any pagination/filter-combination behavior.
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 0%, so the description must carry the semantics, and it does for four of five parameters: sku is exact, search is a term, stock_status accepts instock/outofstock/onbackorder (enum values the schema lacks), and category accepts an id or a name. Only limit is left undocumented.
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 (products) and what each result carries (price and stock), plus the filter surface, so the agent knows this is a filtered product listing. It does not explicitly contrast with get_product or low_stock_report, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the plural/filter framing.
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 says what you can filter on, which implies when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' guidance, no exclusion against get_product (single product by SKU) or low_stock_report, and no note on whether filters combine.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.