Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Nero Reviews: verified job reviews for trades

by io.github.Nero-Engine
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Post the public reply under a review

reply_to_review

Posts the trade's one public reply under a review (replies are final; the review itself never changes). A calm, specific reply under a 1 to 3 star review is what future customers read; my_score lists low reviews still without one. The reply is checked and refused, with the reason and how to fix it, if it uses the customer's surname, any phone number, email or address, swearing, insults such as "liar" or "scammer", legal threats or talk of police, what the customer owes, capitals throughout, or asks the customer to change or remove the review or offers anything for it. Giving the trade's side as plain facts, saying sorry and offering to put the job right are all fine.

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": {
      "trade_key": "<trade_key>",
      "review_id": "<review_id>",
      "reply": "<reply>"
    },
    "name": "reply_to_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
replyYesThe reply, 15 to 500 characters.
review_idYesreview_id from my_score or list_reviews.
trade_keyYesThe trade_key that register_trade returned for this business (starts with nrk_).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing the full refusal policy — surname, contact details, profanity, insults, legal/police talk, debt mentions, all-caps, and review-manipulation requests are rejected with a reason and a fix. It also confirms finality ("replies are final"), which is the concrete meaning behind idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 purpose and finality before the policy detail, and the refusal list is dense but each item is decision-relevant. The sentence about what future customers read is mildly advisory but justifies the tone guidance that follows.

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 definition covers the important unknowns: refusal behavior, finality, and where to get review_id. It does not describe what a successful call returns or whether the reply becomes visible immediately, a minor gap given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for `reply` beyond the 15-500 character rule: the content that will be refused and the phrasing that is acceptable. `review_id` sourcing is already covered by the schema's reference to my_score/list_reviews, so the gain is concentrated in one parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Posts the trade's one public reply under a review") plus cardinality ("one") and durability ("replies are final"), and notes that "the review itself never changes" — which implicitly separates it from dispute_review. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 clear usage context: this is the reply used for 1-3 star reviews, and my_score surfaces low reviews still lacking one, which tells the agent when to reach for it. It never explicitly excludes the sibling dispute_review by name, so the boundary with that tool is left partly to inference from "the review itself never changes".

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

All Nero Reviews: verified job reviews for trades 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