Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official

microsoftstore_reviews_summary

Retrieve Microsoft Store product aggregate review summary by product ID to get average rating, total count, star distribution, and top critical/favorable reviews.

Instructions

Get a Microsoft Store product's aggregate rating summary. Returns a product's aggregate rating: average rating, total review count, a 1-5 star rating distribution, and the upstream-selected most critical and most favorable written reviews.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
localeNoDisplay locale (BCP-47)
countryNoStore country/region code (ISO-2)
product_idYesMicrosoft Store product id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.5

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully lists the return contents (average rating, count, star distribution, upstream-selected critical/favorable reviews), but says nothing about locale/country scoping behavior, caching, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. Return-shape disclosure is a plus, but the behavioral profile is thin.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the return detail. Slight redundancy in restating 'aggregate rating' across both sentences, but there is no filler and it reads efficiently.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description correctly takes on the job of naming what comes back. All three parameters are self-documented in the schema and no annotations are present to explain, but for a straightforward read-only summary call the coverage is essentially sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% (locale, country, product_id all documented with BCP-47/ISO-2 hints), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline 3 when structured data is complete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (Microsoft Store product's aggregate rating summary) and enumerates the returned artifacts, so an agent knows this is a ratings-summary tool rather than a review-list tool. It does not explicitly name the sibling microsoftstore_reviews to sharpen the distinction, but the word 'summary' carries enough contrast.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like microsoftstore_reviews or microsoftstore_product. The usage context is only implied by the purpose statement, leaving the agent to infer when this tool beats its siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools