Skip to main content
Glama

yelp_get_reviews

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch reviews for a Yelp business by business ID to analyze customer sentiment and feedback.

Instructions

Get reviews for a Yelp business.

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_id": "<business_id>"
    },
    "name": "yelp_get_reviews"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyNo
business_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of pagination, result count, sort order, or that reviews may be sparse or empty for some businesses. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the low bar is met but nothing extra is provided.

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?

One sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no front-loaded scope, constraints, or alternative routing information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what a review result looks like (ratings, text, count, pagination), and it does not. For a two-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, this leaves an agent guessing at both input provenance and output shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and fails: api_key (an authentication parameter) is completely unexplained, and business_id is only implied by 'for a Yelp business' with no note on format or provenance. A high-coverage schema does not exist here to compensate.

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 verb and resource (get reviews for a Yelp business), which is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from yelp_search_businesses. However, it never contrasts itself with yelp_get_business, the closest sibling, so the boundary between fetching business details and fetching its reviews is left implicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus yelp_search_businesses or yelp_get_business, and no prerequisites are stated. An agent is not told where business_id comes from (e.g., that it must first be obtained via yelp_search_businesses).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools