Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Blaze

by ai.blaze.app
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List reviews to reply to

list_reviews_to_reply
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the reviews in a workspace that have no reply yet, lowest star rating first, then newest; reviews without a star rating come last. Each entry has the review id, source, star rating, author name, age, a text excerpt, any reply draft already saved, and whether a reply can be posted from Blaze or has to be written on the review site itself.

Covers reviews on Google Business Profile, Facebook, Yelp, Angi, Thumbtack, BBB and Reddit that Blaze has synced, and recent comments on the workspace's Facebook and Instagram posts. Replies can be posted from Blaze only for Google Business Profile reviews and, where enabled, Facebook reviews; comments are listed for reference and must be answered on the platform. Comments on X, LinkedIn, TikTok and YouTube are not covered.

Optional: limit (1-50, default 10) and include_comments (default true). Use draft_review_replies to get suggested replies and send_review_reply to post one. Read-only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workspace_key": "<workspace_key>"
    },
    "name": "list_reviews_to_reply"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax reviews to return (1-50). Defaults to 10.
workspace_keyYesKey of the workspace to act in. Call list_workspaces to see the workspaces you have access to and their keys.
include_commentsNoAlso list up to 5 Facebook and Instagram comments from the last 14 days. Defaults to true.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the sort order, the fact that comments can only be listed (not answered), that X/LinkedIn/TikTok/YouTube are out of scope, and the entry fields returned. These are real behavioral constraints an agent would otherwise have to discover. The 'Read-only' line repeats the annotation, but the rest adds genuine value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core filter and sort, then scope coverage, then routing hints, then the parameter recap. It is long but every block earns its place except the redundant limit/include_comments recap already covered by the schema. One minor tightening would make it a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations covering return shape, the description compensates by enumerating the entry fields (id, source, star rating, author, age, excerpt, existing draft, postability). Combined with source coverage and exclusions, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and all three parameters are documented in the schema, including the 1-50 range and include_comments behavior. The description's restatement of limit and include_comments adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource with a precise scope: unreplied reviews in a workspace, sorted by star rating then recency, with unrrated reviews last. It also enumerates the covered sources and the returned fields, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling review tools at a glance.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly routes the next steps to draft_review_replies and send_review_reply, and states which sources are replyable from Blaze versus must be answered on-platform. It never says when this queue is the wrong choice (e.g., if you want already-replied reviews), so it stops short of full when/when-not framing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Blaze toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources