Fetch Capterra product reviews by product ID or URL to get ratings, pros/cons, and author details.
Get user reviews for a Capterra product by id or URL: rating, pros/cons, and author. 1 point per returned record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes | Product id or URL. e.g. 176586 | |
| max_items | No | Max items (up to 500) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add two pieces of value beyond the schema: the shape of the returned data and the cost model ('1 point per returned record'), which is a useful non-obvious constraint. It says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or whether reviews are sampled versus complete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence plus a short pricing clause; no filler or repetition. It could be marginally tighter, but every clause carries information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers the essentials (what it returns, cost per record) and the schema covers the inputs. It omits pagination/limit behavior and any indication of review coverage, so it is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: 'product' already documents id-or-URL with an example (176586) and 'max_items' documents the 1–500 bound. The description only restates 'by id or URL' and adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get user reviews for a Capterra product') and enumerates the returned fields (rating, pros/cons, author), which implicitly separates it from run_capterra_product and run_capterra_products_search. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to disambiguate, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 the sibling review tools (e.g. run_producthunt_products_reviews, run_gartner_product) or the Capterra product/search tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.