Local SEO Data

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions(1)Admin

review_velocity

Read-only

Analyze review growth, rating trends, reply rates, and sentiment themes over time to track reputation shifts and identify local SEO issues.

Instructions

Analyzes review growth rate, rating changes, reply rate, and sentiment themes over time. Returns reviews_per_month, rating_trend, reply_rate, sentiment_themes, and monthly breakdown. For raw review text without trend analysis, see google_reviews. For multi-location brands pass place_id (from business_profile) — name+location lookups can silently return empty. Costs 6 credits. May take 10-30 seconds.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`period`	No	Time period: "30d", "90d", "6m", or "1y". Default: "90d"
`location`	Yes	City and state
`place_id`	No	Google Place ID for exact match (recommended for multi-location brands)
`business_name`	Yes	Business name

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reply_rate`	Yes
`rating_trend`	Yes
`period_rating`	Yes
`current_rating`	Yes
`sentiment_themes`	Yes
`reviews_per_month`	Yes
`review_count_by_month`	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": {
+    "current_rating": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "period_rating": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "rating_trend": {
+      "enum": [
+        "improving",
+        "declining",
+        "stable"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reply_rate": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "review_count_by_month": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "properties": {
+          "avg_rating": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "count": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "month": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "month",
+          "count",
+          "avg_rating"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "reviews_per_month": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "sentiment_themes": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "properties": {
+        "negative": {
+          "items": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "positive": {
+          "items": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "positive",
+        "negative"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "reviews_per_month",
+    "rating_trend",
+    "current_rating",
+    "period_rating",
+    "reply_rate",
+    "sentiment_themes",
+    "review_count_by_month"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0May 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds important behavior beyond those annotations: 6-credit cost, 10-30 second latency, and the silent-empty-result risk for name+location lookups.

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?

The description is compact and well ordered: purpose, return values, alternative tool, multi-location caveat, cost, and latency. Each sentence adds actionable information without repetition.

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 the presence of an output schema and read-only annotations, the description supplies the remaining decision-critical context: output metrics, when to use a sibling tool, place_id guidance, cost, and expected runtime. Nothing important for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter definitions already do most of the work. The description adds meaningful operational semantics for place_id, explaining that it comes from business_profile and is recommended for multi-location brands because name+location can silently fail.

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?

Starts with a specific verb-resource pairing: analyzes review growth rate, rating changes, reply rate, and sentiment themes over time. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling google_reviews by framing that tool as raw review text without trend analysis.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes users to google_reviews for raw review text, and gives a concrete multi-location recommendation to pass place_id because name+location lookups can silently return empty. The cost and latency notes further help an agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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