Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official

ubereats_store_reviews

Fetch UberEats store reviews by store UUID to get aggregate rating, review count, and recent review text with dates from the page snapshot. Use it to inspect a store's review snapshot.

Instructions

Get UberEats store reviews. Returns the reviews snapshot embedded in an UberEats store page: aggregate rating, review count, and a sample of recent reviews (reviewer name, text, and relative/absolute date). This is a single on-page snapshot, not a full paginated feed. A store with no written reviews returns an empty reviews list.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
store_idYesUberEats store UUID, as returned by the search endpoint's storeUuid field

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses the return shape (aggregate rating, count, sample reviews with names/text/dates), that it is a bounded snapshot rather than paginated, and the empty-list edge case for stores with no written reviews. It does not mention auth or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the return contents and the key limitation. Every sentence adds information and none is redundant with the schema or name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns, and it does so adequately (rating, count, sample reviews with fields). The snapshot/empty-list behavior is also covered. Only the absence of any alternative-tool routing keeps it from a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single store_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema (UberEats store UUID from search's storeUuid field). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get UberEats store reviews') and then enumerates exactly what is returned: aggregate rating, review count, and sample recent reviews. It clearly distinguishes itself from the full store page, so an agent can tell it apart from ubereats_store and ubereats_store_menu without opening schemas.

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?

Gives a useful scoping caveat ('a single on-page snapshot, not a full paginated feed'), which implies when this tool is appropriate versus wanting a full feed. However, it never names an alternative tool nor states explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions relative to its ubereats 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