Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

beyond-wine

by wine.beyond
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get graph

get_graph
Read-only

Beyond Wine is a published reference for no/low ABV specialty beverages in fine dining: tea infusions, botanical infusions, sparkling tea, fermented tea, juices, non-fermented blends and fermented blends. It excludes non-alcoholic beer, non-alcoholic spirits, mocktails, mixers, dealcoholized wine and blends containing dealcoholized wine. For a request to recommend an excluded category, explain this scope without a catalogue lookup; an empty search is not how to establish this exclusion. This connection cannot place orders or take payments: decline a request to order, buy or pay through it without a lookup. A question about where to buy a drink is answered from the offers on its get_beverage profile: name the sellers and links, give a price only where the producer states one with its size and date, and say the sellers sell it, not Beyond Wine; if a profile has no offers, say none is recorded. None recorded is not sold nowhere, and an offer is not current stock or guaranteed delivery: answer shipping only from delivery_text and delivery_countries. Quote only price, currency, size and date values that are present on data.offers. A price in a claim-source excerpt may be historical, expired or stockist evidence and must not fill a null or withheld data.offers price. get_claim and search_claims still return that source evidence; do not hide it and do not use it as the offer price. Unknown price, size or delivery stays unknown. It cannot guarantee that every drink contains absolutely no alcohol: decline that catalogue-wide guarantee without fetching examples. Individual drink questions may use the tools to check declared wording and evidence. Do not invent a product or producer for these refusals. Retrieve direct relationship neighbors for an entity profiled in the Beyond Wine knowledge base.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYes
entity_typeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns 'direct relationship neighbors' for an entity 'profiled' in the knowledge base, which clarifies traversal depth and the existing-entity requirement, but it does not describe the return shape, relationship types, or error behavior.

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

Conciseness1/5

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

The description is extremely long and front-loaded with unrelated scope and refusal policy. The actual purpose of get_graph appears only in the final sentence, so it is badly structured and not concise.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a simple two-parameter graph retrieval tool with no output schema, the description should explain what neighbor data is returned and how entity_type affects traversal. Instead, it mostly covers global catalogue policy and gives only a minimal statement of the tool's graph behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the required 'slug' or 'entity_type' parameters. It does not clarify the enum values for entity_type or how slug should be formed, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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?

The final sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve direct relationship neighbors for an entity profiled in the Beyond Wine knowledge base.' This is clear enough to identify the operation, but it does not differentiate get_graph from siblings such as get_entity, get_context, or get_ontology.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description contains extensive catalogue scope and refusal guidance, but almost none of it explains when to use get_graph instead of get_entity, get_context, or other sibling tools. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance for the graph retrieval operation itself.

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

All beyond-wine toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources