Local SEO Data

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions(1)Admin

qa

Read-only

Check Google Business Profile questions and answers to see what customers ask and whether responses exist, returning question details and answer upvotes.

Instructions

Use when checking what questions people ask on a GBP and whether they have answers. Returns questions with text, author, date, and answers with upvotes. Costs 5 credits.

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": "qa"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`location`	Yes	City and state
`place_id`	No	Google Place ID for exact match
`business_name`	Yes	Business name

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`questions`	Yes
`total_questions`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0Oct 22, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "questions": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "properties": {
+          "answers": {
+            "items": {
+              "additionalProperties": true,
+              "properties": {
+                "author": {
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "date": {
+                  "type": [
+                    "string",
+                    "null"
+                  ]
+                },
+                "text": {
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "time_ago": {
+                  "type": [
+                    "string",
+                    "null"
+                  ]
+                },
+                "upvotes": {
+                  "type": "number"
+                }
+              },
+              "required": [
+                "text",
+                "author",
+                "date",
+                "upvotes"
+              ],
+              "type": "object"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "asked_by": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "date": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "question_text": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "time_ago": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "question_text",
+          "asked_by",
+          "date",
+          "answers"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "total_questions": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "questions",
+    "total_questions"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0May 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by disclosing the 5-credit cost and summarizing returned content (questions, author, date, answers with upvotes), though it does not cover auth or pagination.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition, followed by return shape and cost. Every sentence carries information with no filler.

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?

With a full input schema and an output schema, the description is nearly complete for a simple read tool. It covers usage, cost, and return content; only sibling differentiation is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for business_name, location, or place_id; it only implies a GBP context.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('checking what questions people ask') and resource ('GBP' Q&A), and makes the tool's focus clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like google_reviews or business_profile, but the Q&A framing is distinct enough.

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?

It gives a clear use case ('Use when checking what questions people ask...') but does not name alternatives or say when not to use it. With many sibling tools available, a mention of e.g. google_reviews for review content would have helped.

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

qa