Moonlings — Local Business Intelligence

Review Gap Check

review_gap

Read-only

Compare a local business's Google rating and review count against the top same-category rivals nearby, with the gap math done: who leads, the rating delta, the review-volume ratio, and a verdict (leading / rated_equal_or_better_but_outreviewed / trailing). Live Google Maps lookup at call time. Call this when a user wants to know how a business's reviews stack up against local competitors. Takes a few seconds. Price: $0.39 per delivered comparison.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`address`	No	Optional: street address of the SPECIFIC location to compare, e.g. "332 Ludlow Ave" — use for chains/multi-location businesses so the right branch anchors the comparison
`location`	Yes	City and state/region, e.g. "Cincinnati, OH"
`businessName`	Yes	The local business to check
`businessType`	Yes	Category anchor, e.g. "dentist" — rivals are the top Google Maps results for this category nearby

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation (true), the description adds that it performs a live Google Maps lookup, takes a few seconds, and costs $0.39 per comparison. This provides valuable behavioral context for the agent.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant or extraneous information.

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 4 parameters (3 required, 1 optional) and no output schema, the description explains the return values (who leads, rating delta, review-volume ratio, verdict) and the tool's mechanics (live lookup, cost, timing), making it complete for agent use.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for businessType ('Category anchor') and address ('for chains/multi-location businesses'), which adds meaning beyond the schema descriptions. However, no further parameter details are given.

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?

The description clearly states it compares a local business's Google rating and review count against top same-category rivals, with specific outputs like rating delta, review-volume ratio, and verdict. It distinguishes itself from siblings (e.g., check_facts, check_visibility) which are unrelated to review comparisons.

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?

Description explicitly says 'Call this when a user wants to know how a business's reviews stack up against local competitors.' No exclusions or alternatives provided, but the tool's niche is well-defined and no sibling tool overlaps in purpose.

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

All Moonlings — Local Business Intelligence tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a distinct function: fact verification, visibility check, review gap analysis, competitor scan, and deep research. The report-related tools (start, poll, fetch) are clearly separated by their roles. No two tools are easily confused.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names use snake_case consistently. Most start with verbs like 'check_', 'get_', 'run_', or 'start_', though 'ping' and 'review_gap' deviate slightly. The pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools cover the domain of local business intelligence well: fact-checking, visibility, review comparison, competitor scan, and deep research. The count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming for the scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core intelligence needs: fact verification, review comparisons, visibility checks, competitor scans, and deep research reports. Minor gaps like a tool to list businesses or manage multiple entities exist, but for single-business analysis it's nearly complete.

Resources

Need Help?