Fetch Yelp business reviews by alias or encoded ID to analyze customer sentiment, with limit and offset options for pagination.
Get Yelp business reviews. Fetches reviews for a Yelp business.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Yelp business alias or encoded id | |
| limit | No | Max reviews to return, 1-50 | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing beyond restating the name. It does not reveal ordering, whether all reviews are returned, what limit/offset do in practice, or the shape of the response.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but the two sentences are redundant, the second saying nothing the first did not. No portion of the text adds information that the tool name does not already convey.
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?
For a review-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description should at least indicate return format or how it differs from its review-related siblings. With three documented params but zero explanation of results or disambiguation, an agent cannot confidently call it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with id, limit (1-50), and offset all documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already states.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("Get/Fetches reviews for a Yelp business"), so the basic purpose is clear. However, the second sentence merely rephrases the first, and it offers no differentiation from the closely named siblings yelp_business_reviews_search and yelp_business_review_highlights, which an agent would easily confuse.
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?
There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus yelp_business_reviews_search or yelp_business_review_highlights. The description gives no prerequisites (e.g., needing a business id) and no exclusions, leaving the selection entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.