Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Upload-Post

Upload-Post

Official
by Upload-Post
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Reply to a Google Business review

reply_to_google_business_review
Destructive

Create or update the owner's public reply to a Google Business review, previewing the exact response first and requiring user approval before posting.

Instructions

Create or update the owner reply to a Google Business review. Provide review_name (the full resource path from get_google_business_reviews) or review_id + location_id. Needs the user's approval: call it first without confirmed to get a preview (nothing is sent), show the user exactly what will go out, and repeat the call with confirmed: true only after they approve.

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": {
      "user": "<user>",
      "comment": "<comment>"
    },
    "name": "reply_to_google_business_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userYesUpload-Post profile name that owns the connected Google Business account.
commentYesThe reply text posted publicly under the review.
confirmedNoSet to true only after the user has seen the preview this tool returns without it and approved it. Without it nothing is sent.
review_idNoReview ID; requires location_id to build the resource path.
location_idNoLocation for the review when using review_id.
review_nameNoFull review resource path 'accounts/.../locations/.../reviews/{id}' (from get_google_business_reviews).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.17.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmed
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Set to true only after the user has seen the preview this tool returns without it and approved it. Without it nothing is sent.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.11.1
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedOutput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  3. Addedv0.7.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the crucial behavioral detail that the first call sends nothing and only the confirmed call mutates state — that is the single most important thing an agent needs to know here. It does not mention that an existing reply is overwritten or that the text becomes publicly visible beyond the schema's note, so it falls just 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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then identifiers, then the approval protocol. Every clause carries actionable information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 six-parameter mutating tool with an output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description covers purpose, input sourcing, and the safety workflow. The only gap is what happens to a pre-existing reply on update, which matters for a destructiveHint tool.

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 already 100%, so full marks are not automatic, but the description adds genuine combination semantics: review_name is a complete resource path, OR review_id must be paired with location_id. That either/or logic is more useful than the schema's field-by-field notes and directly prevents malformed calls.

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 pair (create or update) and a precise resource (the owner reply to a Google Business review), and names the sibling get_google_business_reviews as the source of the review identifier. An agent can immediately distinguish this from generic comment tools such as reply_to_comment.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit operational instructions: call first without `confirmed` to produce a preview, show the user exactly what will be sent, then repeat with `confirmed: true`. It also states two accepted ways to identify the review, so the agent knows which upstream call feeds which parameter.

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