post_dataforseo_business_tripadvisor_reviews_submitThis endpoint provides results from the “Reviews” element on the Tripadvisor platform. The results are specific to the URL path or keyword you indicate, and and the selected location (see the List of Locations).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / body / items / properties / postback_url / descriptionPrevious value: -"*return URL for sending task results* optional field once the task is completed, we will send a POST request with its results compressed in the `gzip` format to the `postback_url` you specified you can use the ‘$id’ string as a `$id` variable and ‘$tag’ as urlencoded `$tag` variable. We will set the necessary values before sending the request. example: `http://your-server.com/postbackscript?id=$id` `http://your-server.com/postbackscript?id=$id&tag=$tag` **Note:** special characters in `postback_url` will be urlencoded; i.a., the `#` character will be encoded into `%23`learn more on our [Help Center](https://dataforseo.com/help-center/pingbacks-postbacks-with-dataforseo-api)"New value: +"URL for sending task results optional field once the task is completed, we will send a POST request with its results compressed in the gzip format to the postback_url you specified you can use the ‘$id’ string as a $id variable and ‘$tag’ as urlencoded $tag variable. We will set the necessary values before sending the request. example: http://your-server.com/postbackscript?id=$id http://your-server.com/postbackscript?id=$id&tag=$tag Note: special characters in postback_url will be urlencoded; i.a., the # character will be encoded into %23 learn more on our [Help Center](https://dataforseo.com/help-center/pingbacks-postbacks-with-dataforseo-api)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing about the write/task-creation behavior, job lifecycle, billing, or return of a task id. Worse, 'provides results' reads like a read operation, which is at odds with the task-submission semantics implied by the name and annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is short and front-loaded, but contains a duplication typo ('and and') and squanders its brevity on vague, uninformative phrasing rather than essential behavior. Length is fine; content density is low.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an async task-submission endpoint whose only top-level parameter is an undocumented body array, the description omits the task lifecycle, batching, and any differentiator from the fetch/search siblings. The presence of an output schema excuses explaining return values, but not the missing operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is reported as 0% at the top level (the single 'body' parameter has no description), so the description must compensate, and it does not. It never explains the required body array, the url_path/keyword and location mutual-exclusion rules, or any of the filter fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says the endpoint 'provides results from the Reviews element on Tripadvisor,' which restates the resource but frames it as a read/retrieval endpoint. The tool name is 'submit' and it sits among task-submission siblings, yet the description never states that it creates an asynchronous task. It also fails to distinguish itself from get_dataforseo_business_tripadvisor_reviews_fetch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this task-submission endpoint versus the fetch sibling, nor any note about polling the resulting task or batching. The only implied usage is that inputs are scoped by URL path/keyword and location, which is parameter scope, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.