aukro-mcp

Get User Ratings & Feedback Comments

aukro_get_user_feedback

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve paginated feedback comments and ratings for an Aukro user by userId or username, with filters for received/sent feedback direction and positive, neutral, or negative sentiment.

Instructions

Retrieve paginated feedback comments and ratings for an Aukro user (by userId or username). Supports filtering by feedback direction (ALL_RECEIVED, FROM_BUYERS, FROM_SELLERS, SENT) and sentiment (ALL, POS, NEU, NEG).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "aukro_get_user_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tab`	No	Feedback category tab	ALL_RECEIVED
`page`	No	0-indexed page number
`userId`	No	Numeric user ID (provide either `userId` or `username`)
`pageSize`	No	Number of feedback entries per page
`username`	No	Username (automatically resolved to `userId` if `userId` is omitted)
`sentiment`	No	Filter by feedback sentiment: ALL, POS (positive), NEU (neutral), or NEG (negative)	ALL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the pagination nature and the filter enums, both of which the schema already carries; it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or how paging terminates.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action and identifier options front-loaded before the filter list. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description should sketch the returned shape (rating value, comment text, timestamps, paging metadata), but it only says 'feedback comments and ratings'. Annotations and full schema coverage make it usable, but an agent still cannot predict the response structure.

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 restates the tab and sentiment enums and the userId/username choice but adds no semantics beyond the schema, such as precedence rules when both identifiers are supplied or how SENT relates to the user's own outgoing feedback.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve paginated feedback comments and ratings for an Aukro user', with the identifier options named. It is clearly distinct from siblings like aukro_get_user_profile or aukro_get_seller_leaderboard, though it never explicitly says so.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It explains how to identify the target (userId or username) and what filters exist, which implies when the tool is applicable. It gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no prerequisites, such as whether authentication is required to read feedback.

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