More Good Reviews

Create Review

createReview

Create Review

Create a review for a customer identified by email or phone, creating the customer when needed, with optional source, location, tags, and review date.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	No	Email address used to find or create the customer.
`phone`	No	Phone number used to find or create the customer.
`score`	Yes	Star rating from 1 to 5.
`review`	No	Plain-text review body; HTML is derived server-side. Accepts at most 5000 characters.
`company`	No	Company or organization name associated with the customer.
`last_name`	No	Customer last name.
`tag_slugs`	No	Review tag slugs to assign after create.
`created_at`	No	When the review was written. Optional instant for request bodies: Unix timestamp as integer (seconds), or a date/time string of at most 50 characters that PHP Carbon can parse. For strings, ISO-8601 / RFC 3339 (for example 2026-04-28T15:30:00Z) is the recommended format in examples and client integrations. Invalid values fail validation. When the field is omitted or null, the API uses the current server time where that behavior is documented on the operation.
`first_name`	Yes	Customer first name.
`source_slug`	No	Slug of an existing review source. Returns 404 if the slug is not found. Accepts at most 50 characters.
`external_url`	No	Public URL of the review on an external site (for example Google or Yelp). Accepts at most 500 characters.
`location_slug`	No	Slug of an existing project location. Returns 404 if the slug is not found. Accepts at most 50 characters.
`customer_photo_url`	No	Public image URL downloaded and stored as the customer photo before the review is created. Returns 400 if the URL cannot be fetched or is not a valid image. Accepts at most 500 characters.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	Short code or application-level status code for this resource.
`data`	No	Response payload for the request.
`success`	No	Indicates whether the request completed successfully.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 26, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent operation. The description adds a concrete side effect—'creating the customer when needed'—which goes beyond the annotations. It also summarizes optional attributes like source, location, tags, and review date, giving the agent a clearer behavioral model.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the substantive behavior in a single sentence. The only slight issue is that it opens with 'Create Review', which just repeats the tool title, adding minimal extra value.

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?

The description covers the primary use case and the main side effect, but it implies that email/phone are the identification mechanism while they are optional in the schema. It also leaves nuances like error handling to the schema and does not mention alternative flows or the exact return value, though the output schema exists to fill some of that gap.

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%, with detailed per-parameter descriptions already present. The tool description only groups parameters into categories (source, location, tags, review date) and does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the rich schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('review'), and clearly defines the main behavior: creating a review for a customer identified by email or phone, creating the customer when needed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like createCustomer or createAsk, and the optional fields are summarized without confusion.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a review needs to be created and possibly a customer needs to be created/identified. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scenario is unambiguous and no exclusions are needed.

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

All More Good Reviews tools Inspect

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

Need Help?