Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Is it legit? Reviews trust checker

by com.isitlegitreviews
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Add your summary of the reviews to the place's page

submit_takeaways
Idempotent

After a submission is finalized: send the summary you give the user of what recent reviewers praise (pros), complain about (cons) and advise (tips), up to 6 short plain-English sentences per list, drawn from reviews by established accounts rather than one-off ones. It is shown on the place's page next to the trust result and never affects the score. The same lists can travel inside the submission payload as takeaways instead. Only an accepted or kept submission can carry one; calling again replaces yours.

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": {
      "submission_id": "<submission_id>"
    },
    "name": "submit_takeaways"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
consNoWhat they complain about.
prosNoWhat recent reviewers praise.
tipsNoPractical advice they give.
submission_idYesThe finalized submission these lists summarize (from begin_submission / submit_reviews).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: where the data surfaces (place page next to the trust result), that it has no effect on the score, the replacement-on-repeat semantics, and the content constraint that lists should be drawn from established-account reviews rather than one-off ones. It doesn't say what error or response an agent gets when the submission is not accepted, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two long sentences but no filler; the trigger condition ('After a submission is finalized') is front-loaded and each clause carries distinct information. The `takeaways` alternative and replacement semantics are slightly buried mid-sentence rather than separated.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the effect of the call (lists appear on the place page, score untouched) and the replace-on-repeat behavior, which is what an agent needs to act safely. It omits the shape of the response and behavior on invalid submission state.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns more by adding constraints the schema lacks: up to 6 short plain-English sentences per list and the sourcing rule for which reviews may be summarized.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: send a pros/cons/tips summary of recent reviews for display on a place's page. It also distinguishes itself from the inline route by noting the same lists can travel inside the submission payload as `takeaways` instead, and clarifies it is separate from scoring ('never affects the score').

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit prerequisites: 'After a submission is finalized' and 'Only an accepted or kept submission can carry one.' It also names the alternative path (embedding `takeaways` in the submission payload) and the consequence of repeat calls ('calling again replaces yours').

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

All Is it legit? Reviews trust checker 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