Outscraper MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Google Maps Reviews

google_maps_reviews

Fetch Google Maps reviews by place ID or query to analyze ratings, text, and metadata. Supports async processing for large volumes.

Instructions

Fetch Google Maps reviews for place ids or place queries.

Best for:

review analysis
recent-review monitoring
targeted review extraction for specific places

Prefer this tool when:

the user needs review text, review counts, or review metadata
you already know the place or can identify it from a query
async polling is acceptable for heavier review jobs

Use async mode when:

review volume is large
you query many places in one request
you want to poll progress later with requests_get

Do not use this for basic place discovery:

use google_maps_search first
then use google_maps_reviews once you know the target place or query set

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sort`	No	Review sorting mode.
`async`	No	Deprecated compatibility flag. Prefer execution_mode.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of places to process.
`query`	Yes	One or more place ids or Google Maps business queries.
`start`	No	Start date or offset accepted by Outscraper.
`cutoff`	No	Cutoff date/timestamp accepted by Outscraper.
`fields`	No	Specific review fields to return.
`region`	No	Region code, for example us.
`source`	No	Review source.
`webhook`	No	Optional webhook URL for async completion.
`language`	No	Language code, for example en.
`ignore_empty`	No	Skip places without reviews.
`cutoff_rating`	No	Minimum rating cutoff.
`reviews_limit`	No	Maximum reviews per place.
`reviews_query`	No	Optional keyword filter inside reviews.
`execution_mode`	No	Execution strategy. Use auto to let the MCP server choose between sync and async.
`last_pagination_id`	No	Resume token from previous page.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`meta`	Yes
`async`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.5Sep 23, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedv0.2.3Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses async/sync execution modes, mentions webhook for async completion, and explains polling progress via requests_get. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, rate limits, or error handling, though these are implied by the nature of a fetch tool. The guidance on async for heavy jobs adds meaningful context.

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 well-structured with clear section headers (Best for, Prefer this tool when, Use async mode when, Do not use) that front-load the core purpose and usage. Every sentence earns its place, and the bullet-point format makes it scannable without unnecessary prose. It is appropriately sized for a complex 17-parameter tool.

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?

Despite 17 parameters and an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It explains use cases, alternatives, async behavior, and even provides a workflow (use google_maps_search first). The output schema covers return values, and the parameter schema covers individual params, so nothing critical is missing from the description's standpoint.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the query parameter's meaning ('place ids or place queries') but adds no new information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't elaborate on sort, limit, or other params, but the schema handles those adequately.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch Google Maps reviews for place ids or place queries.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating it is for reviews, not basic place discovery, and directly references google_maps_search as the alternative for that purpose. This makes the tool's scope unambiguous.

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?

The 'Prefer this tool when' and 'Do not use this' sections provide explicit conditions and name the alternative (google_maps_search). It also details when to use async mode and mentions polling with requests_get, giving clear decision guidance. No other tool in the sibling list is routed to as directly, making this exceptionally actionable.

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