Skip to main content
Glama

LeoWorks Data Tools — Naver, K-beauty & AliExpress

leoworks/korean-review-classifier

leoworks--korean-review-classifier
Destructive

This tool calls the Actor "leoworks/korean-review-classifier" and retrieves its output results. Actor description: Classify Korean customer reviews — Coupang reviews (쿠팡 리뷰), Olive Young reviews, Naver Shopping and Naver Place reviews — into complaint types, sentiment and purchase motive with probabilities. Korean review sentiment analysis for any review scraper's dataset — no prompts, no LLM key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textsNoPaste review texts directly (one per line). Use this OR “Reviews dataset”. Example values: ["배송이 일주일이나 걸렸고 박스가 다 찢어져서 왔어요.","항상 쓰던 거라 이번에도 재구매했어요. 할인할 때 사니 좋네요!"]
idFieldsNoFields copied unchanged from each input item to the output so you can join results back (e.g. reviewId, productId). Leave empty to auto-pick reviewId/id/url.
maxItemsNoClassify at most this many reviews (0 = all).
waitSecsNoMax seconds (0–45, default 30) to cap the wait for the Actor run to reach terminal state. For long-running Actors the response returns at the cap with the current run status; follow `nextStep` to poll via get-actor-run. Set to 0 to fire-and-forget.
datasetIdNoAn Apify dataset containing reviews — for example the output of a Coupang, Naver Shopping, Naver Place or Olive Young review scraper. Use this OR “Review texts”.
textFieldNoField holding the review text. Leave empty to auto-detect (content, text, review, body, reviewText, …).
outputModeNoMinimal mode returns only label keys — smaller and easier to aggregate. Example values: "full"full
healthCheckNoInternal: fail the run when results look degraded (used by the developer's scheduled checks).
customLabelsNoUp to 10 extra yes/no labels (each up to 200 characters) written in plain language (English or Korean), e.g. “mentions the smell”, “배송 기사 불친절 언급”. Each gets a probability.
maxConcurrencyNoReviews classified in parallel. Example values: 10
extraTextFieldsNoFields to prepend to the text (up to 5), e.g. `title` for Coupang review headlines. Leave empty if unsure.
summaryGroupFieldNoField in your dataset that identifies the product (e.g. `productId`, `productName`, `placeId`). The run then saves a REPORT record with, per product: complaint rate and complaint mix, sentiment shares, purchase motives, average rating and 3 example complaints. Leave empty to detect it automatically (overall summary only if none is found). No extra charge.
complaintThresholdNoMinimum probability (0–1) for a complaint type or custom label to be reported. Raise it for fewer, surer labels. Example values: 0.5

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tipNoAdvisory guidance RAG Web Browser wrote to its key-value store under the reserved "TIP" key
runIdYesActor run ID
statsNoRun statistics
statusYesRun status: READY | RUNNING | TIMING-OUT | TIMED-OUT | ABORTING | ABORTED | SUCCEEDED | FAILED
actorIdYesStable Apify Actor ID from the run record
summaryYesPast-tense summary of the run state
exitCodeNoActor process exit code; populated for terminal states (especially FAILED)
nextStepYesOne primary follow-up action with identifiers interpolated
storagesYesDataset and key-value store metadata, keyed by alias. "default" is always the primary entry.
actorNameNo"username/actor-name"
startedAtNoISO timestamp when the run started
finishedAtNoISO timestamp when the run finished (terminal states only)
statusMessageNoPass-through from Apify run.statusMessage
apifyConsoleUrlNoPersonalized Apify Console link to the run; present only for Console sessions

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly structured. The description adds only 'no prompts, no LLM key' as a behavioral trait, and does not disclose that this launches a billable Actor run, its cost, or auth/rate-limit characteristics. With annotations covering part of the burden, this is adequate but thin.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the actual classification capability and compact overall. The first clause ('calls the Actor ... and retrieves its output results') is boilerplate that restates the name, but the total length is small and nothing is bloated.

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?

Given 13 parameters with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and the source platforms. It leaves the billable-run behavior implicit, but the return format is handled by the output schema and parameter behavior by the schema, so it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every one of the 13 parameters is already documented in the schema (texts vs datasetId, idFields, summaryGroupField, complaintThreshold, etc.). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3.

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 verb (classify) and resource (Korean customer reviews from Coupang, Olive Young, Naver Shopping/Place) and states the output categories (complaint types, sentiment, purchase motive with probabilities). This distinguishes it from siblings like the Aliexpress classifier and the ranking/monitor tools. The opening boilerplate about calling the Actor adds no value but does not obscure the purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It implies context ('Korean review sentiment analysis for any review scraper's dataset') which suggests when it is applicable, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs the sibling aliexpress-reviews-classifier or other classifiers, and no exclusions. Usage is left to inference.

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.