Retrieve Trustpilot business cards related to a given slug to discover similar companies listed on public page rails.
Get Trustpilot related businesses. Returns related company cards from Trustpilot's public business page rails.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Trustpilot business slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the tool returns related company cards 'from rails', which is vague. There is no disclosure about read-only nature, rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects. The description could benefit from clarifying that this is a read operation.
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 two sentences long and extremely concise. Every word adds value: it identifies the action, resource, and source. No filler or repetition.
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?
Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic functionality but lacks depth. It does not mention output format, potential limitations, or any pagination behavior. For a simple tool, it is adequate but could be more informative.
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 has 100% description coverage for the single 'slug' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Trustpilot business slug' – it does not provide format examples or clarify what a valid slug looks like. No extra value is contributed.
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 clearly states it retrieves related businesses from Trustpilot using the public business page rails. The verb 'Get' and resource 'related businesses' are specific. While it distinguishes from sibling tools like trustpilot_business (single business) and trustpilot_business_search (search), the term 'related company cards' is slightly vague but acceptable.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trustpilot_business or trustpilot_business_search. There is no mention of prerequisites, optimal scenarios, or conditions to avoid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.