Review stats per location and org totals: review counts, average rating, 1-5 star breakdown, unanswered count, and activity in the trailing window (default 30 days).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| location_id | No | UUID from list_locations; omit for all locations |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds behavioral context about the trailing window (default 30 days) and specific metrics returned, which is valuable beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence that conveys all essential information without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description lists the metrics returned, which is adequate. However, it could be more explicit about the structure (e.g., per-location objects vs totals).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (days parameter lacks description in schema). The description adds the default 30 days and the concept of a trailing window. For location_id, both schema and description cover omission for all locations. Description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the missing schema description of days.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides 'Review stats per location and org totals' listing specific metrics, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_reviews (individual reviews) and list_locations (just locations).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for aggregate stats but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_reviews for individual reviews or send_review_request for sending requests.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource: listing locations, listing reviews, aggregated stats, drafting vs. publishing replies, review requests, and usage tracking. The two reply tools are clearly separated by internal vs. public visibility.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list, get, draft, publish, send) with clear, descriptive nouns. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
Seven tools provide a focused but complete set for the core reputation management workflows. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without redundancy or bloat.
Covers the main lifecycle: list locations/reviews, draft and publish replies, send review requests, and view stats. Minor gaps like direct editing of existing drafts or reply history are possible but not critical for core functionality.
