Local SEO Data

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions(1)Admin

reputation_audit

Read-only

Analyze cross-platform review reputation and sentiment to get a reputation score, per-platform ratings, sentiment themes, response rate, and recommendations.

Instructions

Use when analyzing cross-platform review reputation with sentiment. Returns reputation_score, per-platform ratings, sentiment themes, response_rate, and recommendations. Costs 30 credits. May take 10-30 seconds.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`location`	Yes	City and state
`business_name`	Yes	Business name

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`platforms`	Yes
`sentiment`	Yes
`response_rate`	Yes
`recommendations`	Yes
`reputation_score`	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": {
+    "platforms": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "properties": {
+        "google": {
+          "additionalProperties": true,
+          "properties": {
+            "count": {
+              "type": "number"
+            },
+            "rating": {
+              "type": "number"
+            },
+            "trend": {
+              "type": "string"
+            }
+          },
+          "required": [
+            "rating",
+            "count",
+            "trend"
+          ],
+          "type": "object"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "google"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "recommendations": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "reputation_score": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "response_rate": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "sentiment": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "properties": {
+        "negative": {
+          "items": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "positive": {
+          "items": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "positive",
+        "negative"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "reputation_score",
+    "platforms",
+    "sentiment",
+    "response_rate",
+    "recommendations"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0May 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds operational context: 30-credit cost and 10-30 second latency, plus return contents. It does not disclose data freshness or the exact platform list, but the added cost and latency context is valuable.

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?

Three compact sentences; the usage trigger, output contents, cost, and latency are front-loaded with no filler. Every sentence provides operational or selection value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given an existing output schema, annotations, and complete input schema, the description covers what the tool does, return fields, cost, and runtime. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide and call it, though platform scope remains implicit.

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% and both required parameters have descriptions, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description does not add any parameter-level guidance for business_name or location, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific analysis (cross-platform review reputation with sentiment) and lists output contents, so an agent can identify the capability. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling review tools such as multi_platform_reviews or local_audit, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

The phrase 'Use when analyzing cross-platform review reputation with sentiment' supplies a clear triggering condition. It gives no when-not guidance or named alternatives, which matters given the many sibling review and audit tools.

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