sales_summaryCalculate sales, order, item, refund, and average totals for a week, month, last month, year, or custom date range to summarize WooCommerce store performance.
Totals (sales, orders, items, refunds, average) for a period: week, month, last_month, year, or a custom date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | ||
| date_max | No | ||
| date_min | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered, and the description adds the aggregation nature of the result. However, it omits key behavior: what happens when no period is supplied (default window), whether date_min/date_max take precedence over period, and whether both custom-range bounds are required.
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 the metric list up front and the period options immediately after; nothing is redundant or padded.
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 3-parameter, no-output-schema tool, listing the returned metrics is helpful and covers the output gap. But it leaves the custom-range mechanics and default-period behavior undefined, which are the details an agent most needs to call it correctly.
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 parameter meaning, but it only restates the period enum values already visible in the schema. The date_min/date_max parameters are never named or explained — 'custom date range' only hints at them without stating format, pairing, or precedence.
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 states a specific resource (aggregated totals of sales, orders, items, refunds and averages) scoped to a time period, which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling listing tools like list_orders or get_order. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, keeping it short of a 5.
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 enumerates the accepted period values but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer the detailed siblings (list_orders, search_customers) over this aggregate view, and no prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.