webdata-tools-mcp

Get Trustpilot reviews and company rating

get_trustpilot_reviews

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetches Trustpilot reviews for one or more companies, with ratings, text, and reviewer details. Filter by stars, language, and date to get targeted feedback.

Instructions

Trustpilot reviews for one or more companies (rating, title, text, reviewer, country, date, company reply) plus the company's TrustScore and review counts. Filter by stars, language, verified and date period. Runs the Apify Actor tacps126/trustpilot-reviews on your Apify account (about $0.0005 per review; company profile free; spend per call is capped at $0.5).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sort`	No	Newest reviews first (recency) or most relevant first.	recency
`search`	No	Only reviews containing this text.
`companies`	Yes	Company domains or Trustpilot URLs, e.g. "apify.com".
`date_period`	No	Only reviews from this period.
`extra_input`	No	Advanced: extra Actor input fields, merged over the defaults.
`max_reviews`	No	Maximum results to return (default 50, max 500). Cost scales with this.
`star_ratings`	No	Only these ratings, e.g. ["1","2"] for complaints.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tool`	Yes	Name of the tool that produced the result.
`count`	Yes	Number of records the Actor returned.
`items`	Yes	The records. Long text fields are shortened to 600 characters.
`shown`	Yes	Number of records included in `items` (can be lower than count when the result is long).
`truncated`	Yes	True when records were left out to keep the result short; ask for fewer items.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.1Oct 17, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / date_period / description
```
Added value: +"Only reviews from this period."
```

addedInput schema / properties / sort / description

Added value: +"Newest reviews first (recency) or most relevant first."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Number of records the Actor returned.",
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "items": {
+      "description": "The records. Long text fields are shortened to 600 characters.",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "propertyNames": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "shown": {
+      "description": "Number of records included in `items` (can be lower than count when the result is long).",
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "description": "Name of the tool that produced the result.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "truncated": {
+      "description": "True when records were left out to keep the result short; ask for fewer items.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "tool",
+    "count",
+    "shown",
+    "truncated",
+    "items"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it runs the Apify Actor tacps126/trustpilot-reviews on the caller's own Apify account, costs ~$0.0005 per review, and caps spend at $0.5 per call. It stops short of describing latency or async/polling behavior, so not a full 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before filters and cost. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the parenthetical field list is long and the actor/cost sentence could be tightened.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present and 100% schema description coverage, the description need not explain return values, and it does supply the missing operational context (cost, spend cap, backing actor). The only gap is the absent guidance on choosing this tool over review-related siblings.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents every parameter. The description's mention of 'language' and 'verified' filters is slightly out of step with the top-level schema (those would have to go through extra_input), and it only adds marginal semantics such as cost scaling with max_reviews.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get Trustpilot reviews for one or more companies) and enumerates the returned fields (rating, title, text, reviewer, country, date, company reply) plus TrustScore and review counts. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_app_reviews and search_reddit without needing the schema.

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?

The description implies its domain (Trustpilot company reviews) and lists the available filter dimensions, which hints at when it applies. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use it (e.g., app-store reviews belong to get_app_reviews), so routing is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server