reviews_feedRetrieve paginated business reviews with ratings and replies; filter by star rating, sort results, or bypass the local cache for fresh data.
Reviews of the business with ratings and replies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache | |
| ordering | No | Sort key used by the panel | |
| reviews_page | No | Page number, from 1 | |
| reviews_rank | No | Only this star rating | |
| reviews_per_page | No | Items per page, at most 100 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that ratings and replies are included, but it does not disclose cache behavior, pagination shape, or return structure beyond that. With annotations doing the heavy safety lifting, this is a modest but not rich addition.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to gaps in usage and behavioral detail rather than structural clutter.
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 read-only feed with fully documented parameters and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It omits any explanation of cache freshness, ordering, pagination expectations, and what the feed returns, which would help an agent invoke 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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 identifies the resource (reviews of the business) and the included data (ratings and replies), but it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb or action such as list/fetch. It does not differentiate this feed from any sibling tool, leaving the agent to infer that it retrieves a paginated review collection.
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 use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it. The description also does not explain the role of the 'fresh' cache-skipping option or how ordering/pagination should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.