Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pangolinfo Review Mining MCP

Pangolinfo Review Mining MCP

Official
by Pangolin-spg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

review_mining_report

Generate a combined per-ASIN Amazon review report covering rating distribution, monthly trends, and ranked complaint topics across 14 marketplaces for faster product insight.

Instructions

Combined per-ASIN review-mining summary: totals, rating distribution, monthly trend, top complaint topics, most-endorsed complaints, and billing as returned. When the ASIN matches the documented Oct 12, 2026 baseline (B0FQFB8FMG), the report also cites that historical baseline for reference, clearly labeled as historical — never as current data.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "asin": "<asin>"
    },
    "name": "review_mining_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asinYes10-character Amazon ASIN (case-insensitive).
siteNoAmazon marketplace. Defaults to amz_us.amz_us
pageCountNoReview pages to fetch (~10 reviews per page). Each page bills credits on the Pangolinfo account — see billing notes.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden itself. It does add real value: it discloses credit billing tied to pages fetched and explains the conditional baseline-citation behavior for ASIN B0FQFB8FMG, explicitly labeled historical and never current. It omits the read-only nature, pagination limits beyond pageCount, and what 'billing as returned' actually looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the content inventory so the agent knows what it gets before the edge-case caveat. The trailing 'and billing as returned' is slightly vague padding, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return shape — and it does, enumerating all report sections. With full schema coverage and a stated cost surface, the only gaps are whether results are cached/live and how billing is reported.

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 coverage is 100%, with asin pattern, site enum, and pageCount bounds plus per-page billing documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond echoing that billing is part of the output, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource (per-ASIN review-mining summary) and enumerates its contents: totals, rating distribution, monthly trend, complaint topics, endorsed complaints, billing. The word 'Combined' hints that it aggregates what the siblings produce, but no sibling is named, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'Combined' and the content list — an agent can guess this is the one-shot alternative to mine_complaints, top_complaint_topics, or review_sentiment_summary, but the description never says when to pick this over those or whether it costs more. No when-not guidance is given.

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