Skip to main content
Glama

Project testimonials

get_project_testimonials
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get customer testimonials tied to a specific project (by slug or keyword) from the testimonials table. Returns star rating, customer name, project name, and quote text. Use to source social proof or case-study quotes for a particular job. For unfiltered reviews, use list_reviews.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (default 10)
keywordNoKeyword to fuzzy-match against testimonial project name or content (e.g. "kitchen", "deck")
minRatingNoMinimum star rating (1-5, default 1)
projectSlugNoProject slug to match (e.g. "ballard-kitchen-remodel"). Falls back to title match.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteYes
totalYes
resultsYes
attributionYes
averageRatingYes
filterAppliedYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • removedOutput schema / properties / attribution / properties / contractorLicense
      Removed value: -{
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / attribution / properties / note
      Removed value: -{
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / attribution / properties / organization
      Removed value: -{
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / attribution / properties / retrievedFrom
      Removed value: -{
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / attribution / properties / url
      Removed value: -{
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / attribution / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "organization",
      -  "contractorLicense",
      -  "url",
      -  "sourceUrl",
      -  "citeAs",
      -  "retrievedFrom",
      -  "note"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "sourceUrl",
      +  "citeAs"
      +]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
      +  "additionalProperties": true,
      +  "properties": {
      +    "attribution": {
      +      "additionalProperties": true,
      +      "properties": {
      +        "citeAs": {
      +          "description": "Ready-made citation line. Use verbatim.",
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "contractorLicense": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "note": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "organization": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "primarySource": {
      +          "description": "Present when Kolmo verified but does not author the fact — cite both.",
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "retrievedFrom": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "sourceUrl": {
      +          "description": "The specific page these facts render on. Link this, not the site root.",
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "url": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        }
      +      },
      +      "required": [
      +        "organization",
      +        "contractorLicense",
      +        "url",
      +        "sourceUrl",
      +        "citeAs",
      +        "retrievedFrom",
      +        "note"
      +      ],
      +      "type": "object"
      +    },
      +    "averageRating": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "number",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "filterApplied": {
      +      "additionalProperties": true,
      +      "properties": {
      +        "keyword": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "minRating": {
      +          "type": "number"
      +        },
      +        "projectSlug": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        }
      +      },
      +      "required": [
      +        "minRating"
      +      ],
      +      "type": "object"
      +    },
      +    "note": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "results": {
      +      "items": {
      +        "additionalProperties": true,
      +        "properties": {
      +          "content": {
      +            "type": [
      +              "string",
      +              "null"
      +            ]
      +          },
      +          "date": {},
      +          "name": {
      +            "type": [
      +              "string",
      +              "null"
      +            ]
      +          },
      +          "project": {
      +            "type": [
      +              "string",
      +              "null"
      +            ]
      +          },
      +          "rating": {}
      +        },
      +        "type": "object"
      +      },
      +      "type": "array"
      +    },
      +    "total": {
      +      "type": "number"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "total",
      +    "averageRating",
      +    "filterApplied",
      +    "results",
      +    "note",
      +    "attribution"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by naming the source table, specifying returned fields, and implying fuzzy/keyword matching behavior, which aligns with the annotation profile.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core operation, followed by return fields, use case, and sibling alternative. Every sentence adds distinct value and none of the content is redundant with the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only, idempotent lookup tool with no required parameters and a full output schema, the description covers the essential decision context: what it does, what it returns, when to use it, and when not to. The sibling alternative and use case complete the picture.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including their meanings and defaults. The description adds only light semantic context ('by slug or keyword', 'for a particular job') without exceeding what the schema offers, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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?

The description begins with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Get customer testimonials tied to a specific project', and clarifies the lookup method ('by slug or keyword') and the data source ('from the testimonials table'). It also lists the returned fields, which distinguishes it from broader review tools.

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?

It states an explicit use case: 'Use to source social proof or case-study quotes for a particular job.' It also gives a direct alternative and condition: 'For unfiltered reviews, use list_reviews,' providing clear routing 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.