Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Suara

by com.trysuara
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Review reply templates

review_reply_templates
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when a business owner wants help replying to a customer review on Google, Instagram, TripAdvisor or a delivery app, good or bad, for example 'how do I reply to a 1-star review about slow service?'. Returns Suara's free reply templates for that situation (with [brackets] to fill in), the rules for a good reply and what never to do. Fill the brackets only with details the owner gives you; never promise refunds, freebies or discounts in a public reply.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "review_reply_templates"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
situationNoWhat the review is about, optional, e.g. '5 stars no words', 'food was cold', 'rude review'. Leave out to see every situation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It does add useful behavioral context beyond them: what comes back (templates with [brackets] to fill, the rules of a good reply, what never to do) and two operating constraints – fill brackets only with owner-supplied details, and never promise refunds, freebies or discounts publicly.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then the return content, then the guardrails – a sensible order with little padding. The embedded example query is slightly redundant with the trigger sentence but clarifies intent, and the guardrail sentence earns its length.

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 single optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what comes back (templates, rules, anti-patterns) and how to use the results responsibly. The remaining gap is relational: it doesn't clarify how this differs from the similarly named get_suara_replies sibling.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional 'situation' parameter is already documented, including the 'leave out to see every situation' behavior. The description adds little param-specific syntax beyond mirroring the schema, so this sits at the baseline where structured data does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns Suara reply templates for a review-reply situation, and enumerates the platforms (Google, Instagram, TripAdvisor, delivery apps) plus positive/negative reviews. What it lacks is differentiation from the sibling 'get_suara_replies', which sounds like it serves an overlapping purpose, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('when a business owner wants help replying to a customer review') and a realistic example query ('how do I reply to a 1-star review about slow service?'). It offers no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing, particularly against get_suara_replies or send_to_suara, so the exclusions side is missing.

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

All Suara 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