Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tulina

by ai.tulina.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

apify_google_maps_reviews

Google Maps reviews of given places — text, rating, date, owner reply. compass/Google-Maps-Reviews-Scraper.

Returns — the LIST of reviews (or {error, run_id, status, items}).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "apify_google_maps_reviews"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_orgNoOrg (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
sortNoreview order.newest
sinceNoonly reviews newer than this — a date (`"2026-01-01"`) or a span (`"3 months"`).
_groupNoÉquipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
fieldsNokeep only these keys, e.g. `["stars", "text", "publishedAtDate"]`.
_run_idNoOBLIGATOIRE à chaque appel dès `run_start` ou `data_claim_next` : sans lui, l'écriture sur une ligne réservée est refusée. Hérité seulement si le serveur tient un run actif — n'y compte pas.
_projectNoProjet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
languageNolanguage of the reviews' UI text.en
_instanceNoInstance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.
place_idsNoGoogle place ids (`ChIJ…`), e.g. from `apify_google_maps_places`.
place_urlsNoGoogle Maps place URLs (containing `/maps/place/`).
max_reviewsNoreviews per place.
max_total_charge_usdNohard cost ceiling of the run, $5 by default, at most your organization's ceiling per run ($25 unless set otherwise).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose a genuinely useful trait: the return can be a LIST of reviews or an error envelope `{error, run_id, status, items}`, signalling partial-failure behavior. It omits cost/billing behavior despite a max_total_charge_usd parameter, auth requirements, and whether the run is synchronous.

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?

Two compact lines with the resource and returned fields front-loaded and zero filler. The actor slug is terse but informative for traceability.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Thirteen parameters and no output schema make this a moderately complex tool; the description partially compensates by naming the return fields and the error shape. However, it says nothing about the cost ceiling semantics, how place_ids and place_urls combine, or run lifecycle, leaving significant context to the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every one of the 13 parameters is already documented in structured form; the description adds no parameter meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource: fetch Google Maps reviews for given places, and enumerates the returned fields (text, rating, date, owner reply), which tells an agent exactly what data it gets. It doesn't differentiate itself from nearby siblings like serper_reviews or apify_google_maps_places in the description itself.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. The only implicit routing hint lives in the schema ('place_ids' from apify_google_maps_places), not in the description, so an agent must infer selection between this and serper_reviews or apify_google_maps_places.

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

All Tulina 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