post_dataforseo_business_trustpilot_reviews_submitThis endpoint provides reviews published on the Trustpilot platform for the local establishment specified in the domain field.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, but the description frames the call as simply "providing" reviews, implying a safe read. This contradicts the write/destructive profile and discloses nothing about task queueing, billing per SERP, or pingback/postback notification behavior documented only in the schema.
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 a single, well-formed sentence with no padding, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficient information delivery.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but critical context for a billable asynchronous task submission—cost implications, task ID handling, notification callbacks—is absent and the read-like framing is misleading.
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 for the single top-level parameter is 0%, so the description must compensate, yet it only echoes the domain field and never explains the body array or the tag/depth/sort_by/priority/pingback options. Those fields are documented inside the nested schema, which limits the description's added value.
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 reviews published on the Trustpilot platform," which frames it as a retrieval operation, while the tool name and annotations indicate it submits a task. It also fails to differentiate from the sibling get_dataforseo_business_trustpilot_reviews_fetch, which is the actual fetching tool.
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 submit tool versus the _fetch sibling, no mention that it enqueues an asynchronous task, and no prerequisites. The agent has to infer everything from the name alone.
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.