Local SEO Data

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions(1)Admin

multi_platform_reviews

Read-only

Compare Google and Trustpilot ratings in one call to retrieve per-platform scores, review counts, trends, and a combined rating for business reputation benchmarking.

Instructions

Compares ratings across Google + Trustpilot in one call. Returns per-platform rating, count, and trend, plus combined_rating and total_reviews. Covers both platforms; google_reviews covers Google alone. Costs 6 credits. May take 10-30 seconds.

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": {
      "business_name": "<business_name>",
      "location": "<location>"
    },
    "name": "multi_platform_reviews"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`location`	Yes	City and state
`place_id`	No	Google Place ID for exact match (recommended for multi-location brands)
`platforms`	No	Platforms to check. Default: ["google", "trustpilot"]
`business_name`	Yes	Business name

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`platforms`	Yes
`total_reviews`	Yes
`combined_rating`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.0Oct 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / place_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Google Place ID for exact match (recommended for multi-location brands)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "combined_rating": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "platforms": {
+      "additionalProperties": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "properties": {
+          "count": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "rating": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "recent_trend": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "rating",
+          "count",
+          "recent_trend"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "total_reviews": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "platforms",
+    "combined_rating",
+    "total_reviews"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0May 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new operational facts beyond them: 6 credit cost and 10-30 second latency. Those are the two things most likely to change how an agent schedules or limits this call. It stops short of explaining why it is slow or whether errors still bill credits.

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?

Five short sentences, zero repetition, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then differentiation, then cost and latency. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description only needs to sketch the return shape — which it does (per-platform rating, count, trend, plus combined_rating and total_reviews). With annotations covering safety and the description covering cost and latency, the only real gap is failure behavior, such as what happens when Trustpilot has no listing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (business_name, location, place_id, platforms) are already documented in the schema, including the platforms enum and the place_id recommendation for multi-location brands. The description adds no syntax or interpretation guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Compares ratings across Google + Trustpilot in one call.' It immediately names the sibling it overlaps with (google_reviews) and states the scope difference, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening either schema.

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?

'Covers both platforms; google_reviews covers Google alone' is an explicit routing rule toward the alternative. What's missing is the reverse guidance — when to prefer google_reviews (e.g. single-platform queries) or whether platforms can be narrowed to avoid the 6-credit cost.

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