Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official

ulta_product_reviews

Fetch one page of an Ulta Beauty product's customer reviews and its site-wide rating summary by product_id, including count, average, recommended ratio, and histogram.

Instructions

Get an Ulta Beauty product's customer reviews. Returns one page of an Ulta Beauty product's customer reviews, plus the retailer's own site-wide rating summary (rating count, average rating, recommended ratio, rating histogram) for the product. product_id is taken from a search result's product_id field or a product page's URL. A product with zero reviews, or a well-formed but unrecognized product_id, returns a normal, empty result rather than an error.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoResult page, 1-based, defaults to 1
product_idYesUlta product id, from a search result's product_id field

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.14.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
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 well: it discloses pagination ('one page'), the shape of the returned rating summary, and importantly that empty/unrecognized products return a normal empty result rather than an error. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but the key behavioral quirks are covered.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and return contents, then sourcing and edge-case handling. No filler.

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?

For a 2-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return contents, pagination, id sourcing, and error semantics. It is essentially complete, with only minor gaps like pagination limits or total-count behavior.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds provenance beyond the schema's 'from a search result's product_id field' by also noting it can come from a product page URL. The page parameter's semantics are left to the schema.

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 and resource ('Get an Ulta Beauty product's customer reviews') and clarifies it also returns the site-wide rating summary. This clearly separates it from ulta_product_questions (Q&A) and ulta_product (product details).

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?

Gives concrete sourcing guidance for product_id (search result field or product page URL) and explains edge-case behavior for zero/unrecognized ids. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools like ulta_product_questions, so it stops short of full when-to-use guidance.

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