Fetch buyer reviews for an Etsy shop by providing its numeric ID or name. Returns structured review data for analysis.
Get Etsy shop reviews. Returns buyer reviews for an Etsy shop. Accepts a numeric shop id or a shop name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric Etsy shop id or shop name | |
| limit | No | Page size (default 14) | |
| offset | No | 0-based review offset |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'returns buyer reviews' but does not mention pagination behavior, sorting, default ordering, potential errors, or whether rating data is included. This is a clear gap for a tool without annotation support.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that clearly state the action, result, and input format. There is no wasted wording, and key details are front-loaded.
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?
The tool is simple with three well-documented parameters, but the description lacks contextual details such as what a review contains, how results are ordered, or any notes about pagination beyond the schema. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient but not complete.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for id, limit, and offset. The description's mention of accepting a numeric shop id or shop name adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('Etsy shop reviews'), and clarifies the accepted input ('numeric shop id or shop name'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like etsy_listing_reviews by specifying 'shop' reviews.
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?
The description implies usage when one needs buyer reviews for an Etsy shop, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools (e.g., etsy_listing_reviews for listing-specific reviews). No exclusions are stated, but no proactive guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.