ucontrol-mcp

Ucontrol Read Umap Review Data

ucontrol_read_umap_review_data

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read review data from uMap, providing access to user feedback and ratings for analysis and reporting.

Instructions

uMap API: read review data.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ucontrol_read_umap_review_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, such as return format, pagination, or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not complement them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short and front-loaded, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool. However, it is so sparse that it reads as a label rather than an explanation, providing minimal value to an agent.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has no output schema and many sibling tools with similar names, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what review data contains, whether it returns a list or single entity, or how it relates to other uMap data tools. An agent would likely need to inspect other sources to understand the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not detract from that.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'uMap API: read review data' directly restates the tool name and title without adding any new information. It identifies the action (read) and resource (review data) but does not clarify what review data refers to or differentiate from sibling tools beyond the name itself.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling ucontrol_read_umap_* tools. It does not mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or use cases.

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