Skip to main content
Glama

Every third-party review, verbatim

get_review_record
Read-onlyIdempotent

The complete third-party review record for vote.direct: every published Capterra and Trustpilot review quoted verbatim with links, including the honest caveats (small record, TrustScore explanation, which reviewers had actually run an election, and anything a reviewer received from us).

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": "get_review_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safe read-only, idempotent profile, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the record is small, a TrustScore explanation is included, and it discloses which reviewers actually ran an election plus reviewer compensation. That expectation-setting (limited dataset, caveats included) goes beyond structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with the resource stated first, which is good structure. However the closing parenthetical is loose and partly promotional ('the honest caveats', 'anything a reviewer received from us'), adding words without crisp information.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned, and it does so reasonably: verbatim quotes, links, platform scope, and included caveats. A sentence on record size or ordering would make it fully complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to document, and it correctly omits any parameter discussion. No schema coverage gap exists to compensate for.

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?

The description names a specific resource and its scope: the complete third-party review record for vote.direct, limited to Capterra and Trustpilot. It distinguishes itself from election-management siblings by content, though it never names or contrasts with a potentially adjacent sibling like get_platform_overview.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance at all. The agent can only infer relevance from the content list (reviews from external platforms), which is implied usage rather than stated guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources