list_couponsRetrieve and inspect WooCommerce coupons, including type, amount, usage, and expiry, to confirm whether a specific code is still valid before proposing changes.
Coupons with type, amount, usage and expiry. Use it to answer "is code X still valid?" before proposing anything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | Exact coupon code | |
| page | No | ||
| per_page | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the coupon attributes returned and the validity-checking use case, but it says nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, or authorization needs.
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 very short and front-loads the returned fields before the usage guidance, with no wasted wording. The opening noun fragment is slightly less clear than a complete sentence stating the list action.
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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what data is returned and the primary use case. However, it leaves pagination semantics unexplained and does not clarify the listing scope, which are meaningful gaps given the low schema description coverage.
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 only 33%: code is documented as 'Exact coupon code,' while page and per_page have no descriptions anywhere. The description's 'is code X still valid?' phrasing hints that code is used for lookup, but it does not compensate for the undocumented pagination parameters.
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 identifies the resource (coupons) and the fields returned (type, amount, usage, expiry), but it uses a noun fragment rather than stating the verb 'list' or the scope of the listing. An agent must rely on the tool name and title to confirm that this is a listing operation, and there is no explicit differentiation from sibling list tools.
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 gives a clear, specific use case: answer 'is code X still valid?' before proposing anything. That implicitly routes the agent toward this tool before the propose_* siblings, though it does not name an alternative or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.