Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
angi-mcp

angi-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

angi_get_reviews

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read reviews on an Angi pro's profile: rating, text, job cost, date, categories, verification, and public responses. Filter by rating to isolate complaints or praise.

Instructions

Read the reviews on an Angi pro's profile page: rating, body text, reported job cost, date, service categories, verification flag, and the pro's public response where one exists. Filter by rating to isolate complaints or praise.

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": {
      "profileUrl": "<profileUrl>"
    },
    "name": "angi_get_reviews"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewNoResponse shape: "compact" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; "full" returns every field this server understands. compact returns a slim projection of each record (falling back to the full record if the projection does not fit the payload); "full" returns Angi's whole records.
limitNoReturn at most this many reviews.
compactNoDeprecated: use `view` instead (compact: true = view "compact", false = view "full"). Ignored when `view` is set.
maxRatingNoKeep reviews rated at most this — use maxRating: 3 to surface complaints.
minRatingNoKeep reviews rated at least this.
profileUrlYesThe pro's Angi profile URL or site-relative path, as returned in `profileUrl` by angi_search_pros (e.g. "/companylist/us/nc/charlotte/mkb-plumbing-and-septic-llc-reviews-8535260.htm").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.8
    • changedInput schema / properties / compact / description
      Previous value: -"Return a slim summary per review instead of the full record."New value: +"Deprecated: use `view` instead (compact: true = view \"compact\", false = view \"full\"). Ignored when `view` is set."
    • addedInput schema / properties / view
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Response shape: \"compact\" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; \"full\" returns every field this server understands. compact returns a slim projection of each record (falling back to the full record if the projection does not fit the payload); \"full\" returns Angi's whole records.",
+  "enum": [
+    "compact",
+    "full"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld). Description adds value by disclosing what the records actually contain, including the pro's public response, but omits pagination behavior and whether reviews are capped or ordered.

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?

Two tight sentences: first front-loads the return contents, second gives the filtering affordance. No waste.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema and no annotation gap, but the description does not cover pagination, result ordering, or how the rating filter interacts with limit. For a review-listing tool with a max of 9007199254740991 on limit, ordering/paging context is a real miss.

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%, so all six parameters including rating bounds and the view enum are documented in the schema. Description mentions rating filtering but adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Specific verb+resource with explicit field enumeration (rating, body text, job cost, date, categories, verification flag, response), clearly distinguishing this read-the-reviews tool from angi_search_pros and angi_get_pro siblings.

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?

Gives one actionable usage note — filter by rating to isolate complaints or praise — which is also echoed in the schema. But it never states when to use this versus angi_get_pro or angi_list_my_reviews, its nearest siblings.

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