Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

playstation_concept_reviews

Fetch paginated PlayStation Store concept reviews with ratings, helpful counts, and reviewer details. Filter by rating, sort by date or helpfulness, and get aggregate star ratings.

Instructions

Get PlayStation concept reviews. Returns one page of written PlayStation Store reviews for a concept (game hub), each with its title, body, rating, helpful count, spoiler flag, the edition the reviewer owned, and reviewer identity (online id, PS Plus subscriber status, verified-purchase status, avatar). Also includes the concept's aggregate star rating (including its rating distribution). page/page_size page through the full review list (total_count reports the true upstream review count, has_next_page whether a later page has more), sort controls ordering, and rating optionally filters to one star value. Reviews are region-scoped: cc selects the store region whose reviews are returned (and the price currency); l accepts a language code or locale such as en or en-US, with the locale's primary language used for text. Credential-free public PlayStation Store data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lNoLanguage code
ccNoStore country code (ISO)
idYesNumeric PlayStation concept id
pageNo1-based page number
sortNoSort order
ratingNoFilter to one star rating (1-5)
page_sizeNoReviews per page

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.5

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination semantics, region-scoping, language behavior, and credential-free access. It also notes the response includes aggregate star rating and rating distribution, which is useful beyond 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is dense but well-organized: main return info first, then filter/pagination, then region/language, then access credentials. Every sentence adds value; no filler.

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?

Comprehensive for a read-only retrieval tool: covers return fields, pagination, filters, region/language handling, and credential requirements. No output schema exists, but the description fills that gap well.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% but the description adds meaning: page/page_size interplay, total_count/has_next_page semantics, sort values, rating filter range, cc's dual role (region + currency), and l's locale behavior. This goes beyond the bare schema labels.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('PlayStation concept reviews'), and clarifies scope ('for a concept (game hub)'). It enumerates the returned fields and aggregate rating, distinguishing it from generic review tools. It clearly separates from siblings like playstation_product or playstation_concept by framing it as review-specific.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains page/page_size pagination, sort ordering, rating filtering, and region/language scoping (cc, l). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use this one, but it provides enough operational context that an agent can infer appropriate use for review retrieval.

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