Skip to main content
Glama

google_maps_reviews

Retrieve customer reviews for any Google Maps location using its data ID. Filter by sorting, language, or topic, and paginate through results.

Instructions

Retrieves customer reviews for a Google Maps location, with sorting and topic filtering, given a Maps data_id. [Credits: Not explicitly stated on this page (see general Scrapingdog credit pricing).] Notes: topic_id values come from the topics array in a previous response (each topic has a keyword, mentions count, and id). The results param has an exception: on an unfiltered first page (no next_page_token and no topic_id) it is ignored and 8 results are returned. Pagination is cursor-based via next_page_token; response includes a ready-made pagination.next URL. Returns: JSON with locationDetails {title, address, rating, total_reviews}, topics array of {keyword, mentions, id}, reviews_results array of {rating, date, snippet, user {name, reviews, thumbnail}, images[]}, and pagination {next_page_token, next (full next-page URL)}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
data_idYesThe Google Maps data ID for the location, obtained from the google_maps_search endpoint (or its returned reviews_link).
resultsNoMaximum number of results to return. Valid range: 1-20. Cannot be used on the first page without also supplying next_page_token or topic_id — in that case the response will contain 8 results regardless. (default: 10)
sort_byNoSort order for reviews. Allowed values: `qualityScore` (most relevant, default), `newestFirst` (most recent), `ratingHigh` (highest rated), `ratingLow` (lowest rated). (default: qualityScore)
languageNoLanguage of the results (e.g. en, es, fr, de). See Google Language Page documentation for full list. (default: en)
topic_idNoID of a review topic to filter by, taken from the `topics` array returned in a prior response of this endpoint.
next_page_tokenNoToken used to fetch the next page of review results.
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains pagination (cursor-based via next_page_token), the exception for results param on first page, and the detailed return structure including locationDetails, topics, reviews_results, and pagination.

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?

The description is somewhat lengthy but well-structured, front-loading the main purpose and then detailing nuances. Every sentence adds value, though a slight trim could improve conciseness without losing clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a thorough explanation of inputs, behavior, and return fields. It covers edge cases, pagination, and the structure of the response, making it fully self-contained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains the origin of topic_id, the edge case for results on first page, and the meaning of next_page_token. This helps the agent understand parameter usage beyond syntax.

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?

The description clearly states it retrieves customer reviews for a Google Maps location given a data_id. It uses specific verb 'retrieves' and resource 'customer reviews', distinguishing it from sibling tools like google_maps_search or google_maps_photos.

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?

The description explains that data_id comes from google_maps_search and topic_id from a prior response, providing context for usage. It does not explicitly list when not to use or direct alternatives, but the purpose is clear among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/alessandrobenigni/ScrapingDog-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server