Fetch public reviews for a Marketplace application by application ID and page. Use it to inspect app feedback and ratings for analysis or display.
List public reviews for a Marketplace application.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | ||
| application_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only that returned reviews are 'public', and says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering despite a required page parameter.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the missing pagination and parameter detail rather than compensating for it.
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 simple two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the safety profile is covered by annotations, but the required page parameter and the shape/ordering of results are left entirely undocumented.
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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, but it explains neither application_id (which application) nor page (pagination semantics, page size, limits). Only the bare intent is conveyed.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (public reviews) scoped to a Marketplace application. It is unambiguous, though the distinction from siblings is not needed since no sibling lists reviews.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus e.g. marketplace_get_application, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The word 'public' is the only implied scoping signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.