Sergio by Serviche

Link or unlink a Google review and a client

answer_google_review_match

Idempotent

Says which client wrote a Google review, as Contacts > Needs review does: client_id links it (also moving a review linked to the wrong client), client_id null says no client wrote it (unlinking a linked review). A link closes that client's review requests. Find reviews and their ids with read google_reviews. Nothing is sent or posted to Google. Pass the same idempotency_key when retrying.

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": {
      "review_id": "<review_id>",
      "client_id": "<client_id>",
      "idempotency_key": "<idempotency_key>"
    },
    "name": "answer_google_review_match"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`client_id`	Yes
`review_id`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	Yes	Your id for this operation (8-128 of A-Z a-z 0-9 . _ : -). Reuse it on every retry of the same operation; use a new one for a new operation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds the non-obvious side effect that a link closes that client's review requests, clarifies that nothing is sent or posted to Google (a real concern given the resource is a Google review), and notes the re-link/move case that annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the two client_id branches, then the side effect, then the discovery pointer and the Google-safety note. Dense but every clause carries decision-relevant information; nothing is padding.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers side effects, sourcing of ids, and idempotency. The remaining gap is the response shape — an agent is not told what the tool returns after linking or unlinking, though with no output schema this is a minor omission.

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 only 33% (only idempotency_key is documented in-schema), so the description carries the burden and mostly does: it explains the uuid-vs-null meaning of client_id and where to source review_id. The retry semantics of idempotency_key are repeated rather than extended, and review_id's format is left entirely to the 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?

"Says which client wrote a Google review" names a specific verb and resource, and the immediate gloss "as Contacts > Needs review does" anchors it to a concrete UI concept. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling read tool by naming it ("read google_reviews") as the discovery counterpart.

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?

Explicitly covers both branches of use: client_id set links a review (including moving one linked to the wrong client), client_id null declares no client wrote it and unlinks. It also names the alternative for finding reviews and their ids, and states the precondition for retries (same idempotency_key).

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

All Sergio by Serviche 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?