Search Trustpilot businesses by keyword and return names, domains, ratings, and review counts for competitor or market research.
Search Trustpilot businesses by keyword: name, domain, rating, and review count. 1 point per returned record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search term. e.g. hubspot | |
| max_items | No | Max items (up to 300) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the cost model ('1 point per returned record'), which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but it omits permissions, pagination behavior, and result limits beyond the schema's max_items.
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 tight sentence with the resource and output fields front-loaded, followed by the cost note. No filler, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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 search with no output schema, the description covers the essentials but leaves the key ambiguity with run_trustpilot unresolved and does not explain return shape or result limits beyond the schema.
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% for both parameters (query example, max_items range), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only which fields come back, not extra parameter semantics.
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 ('Search') and resource ('Trustpilot businesses') plus the fields returned (name, domain, rating, review count). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool run_trustpilot, leaving ambiguity about which Trustpilot entry point to pick.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus run_trustpilot or run_trustpilot_reviews. The agent is left to infer from the name alone that this is the keyword-search variant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.