Skip to main content
Glama

get_reviews

Published community reviews for a listing (newest first) + its rolled-up community rating.

The community rating is first-party (visitor-submitted) and is separate from any web-harvested
`rating` returned by the get_/search_ tools. Each review includes the business owner's public reply
when they've responded. Returns {'community_rating', 'community_rating_count',
'reviews': [{rating, title, body, author, created_at, owner_reply, owner_reply_at}]}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
verticalYes
listing_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that reviews are returned newest first, include owner replies, and lists the exact return fields. It does not mention any side effects but none are expected. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise (three sentences) and well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then adding clarifying details about the community rating and return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (2 required) and an output schema is indicated, the description provides a complete picture: it explains the return format, differentiates from sibling tools, and covers key behavioral aspects. For a retrieval tool, this is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. However, it does not explain the 'vertical' parameter (what verticals are accepted), 'listing_id' (how to obtain it), or 'limit' (range or default behavior). The description only mentions the return structure, leaving parameter semantics poorly defined.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves published community reviews for a listing, sorted newest first, and includes the community rating. It distinguishes the community rating from web-harvested ratings from get_/search_ tools, which aids differentiation among sibling tools.

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?

The description mentions the community rating is separate from web-harvested ratings, providing context for when to use this tool versus others like get_restaurant_details. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool or when alternatives are better, leaving some ambiguity.

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.