Chrome-Stats

Get user reviews

get_reviews

Read-onlyIdempotent

User reviews for one extension or app. Set fresh to pull the newest reviews directly from the store instead of the indexed copy — that path is slower, less reliable, and does not paginate. Pagination beyond page 1 requires a paid plan.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_reviews"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Chrome extension ID, Edge add-on ID, Firefox add-on slug/GUID, Android package name, or Apple App Store app ID. For example bmnlcjabgnpnenekpadlanbbkooimhnj or com.joinhoney.honeyandroid.
`page`	No
`fresh`	No	Fetch live from the store.
`language`	No	Android only. Review language code, for example en, es, zh-CN.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description correctly isn't spending words on safety. It adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the fresh path is slower, less reliable, and does not paginate, and page>1 is plan-gated. It stops short of describing error modes or what a review record contains.

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 tight sentences, no filler. The scope statement comes first and the cost/constraint caveats follow, so an agent gets the decision-relevant information immediately.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a four-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious risks: latency, reliability, pagination limits, and plan gating. It could say a bit more about what a review payload includes or how platform selection interacts with the polymorphic `id`, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is glaringly absent.

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 75%, with `page` and `fresh` having only defaults/no prose, so the description has real work to do. It supplies that by explaining exactly what `fresh` changes (live store fetch vs indexed copy) and that pagination depth is restricted by plan — semantics the schema alone does not convey.

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?

The description opens with a specific resource and scope: "User reviews for one extension or app," which pairs naturally with the required `id` parameter. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_extension or search_extensions, though it does not explicitly name them for contrast.

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 gives a concrete rule for choosing the `fresh` path versus the indexed copy ("pull the newest reviews directly from the store instead of the indexed copy") and warns that deep pagination needs a paid plan. What's missing is guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_extension, which may also surface review summaries.

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

All Chrome-Stats tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?