Skip to main content
Glama

List entities

list_entities
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. List published entity profiles in the Beyond Wine knowledge base by type. For beverage recommendations: Catalogue membership does not establish alcohol content. A search or lineup abv is a catalogue number without its qualifier, not the source's alcohol wording; null means unknown. Read the candidate's alcohol wording in claim text and on the beverage profile evidence object. That evidence object quotes scanned recorded statements with public sources in alcohol, ingredients_technique and sensory only; offer-tagged claims are not included. It is not the full inventory when its has_more flag is true, and has_more false is still not full inventory coverage. Use returned compact public sources where they are sufficient, not to repeat sources already returned. Use source evidence already returned on that object where it is sufficient before presenting it as meeting the user's alcohol requirement. Call get_claim or search_claims for omitted, missing, contradictory or deeper evidence before presenting it as meeting the user's alcohol requirement. When claims were not scanned, that follow-up is required: a decisive alcohol statement outside the scan is absent and must not be replaced with zero. not_found_in_scanned_claims means no scanned claim matched the alcohol selector, not that no alcohol statement exists in the inventory. Do not infer zero from that absence or treat the scan as complete. Preserve declared wording; 'non-alcoholic' does not establish 0.0%. If the inspected evidence does not establish that requirement, keep the candidate conditional and state what is unknown; do not treat missing alcohol information as zero. Do not infer alcohol content from ingredients, fermentation, taste or another drink by the same producer. Preserve the source's exact alcohol wording. 0% and 0.0% are different wording, but that difference does not by itself establish different measured trace-alcohol thresholds. 'Below 0.5%' is an upper-bound declaration; these declarations do not by themselves prove measurement or laboratory testing. Do not infer that alcohol is absent from ingredients or production methods.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
limitNo
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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine domain context (what the catalogue includes and excludes, that membership says nothing about alcohol content, that prices in claim sources are not offer prices), which is useful behavior beyond the annotations. However, it discloses nothing about the listing operation itself, such as pagination, result ordering, or whether entity_type filters strictly.

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 a long policy essay with the actual tool purpose stranded in the middle of it. Many sentences are about refusals, price provenance and alcohol-wording rules that belong in the domain instructions or other tools' descriptions, not in a list tool's definition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what a list_entities result looks like (profile summaries vs full profiles, pagination metadata) and clarify how entity_type values like prepared_ingredient behave. It instead spends its budget on refusal policy, leaving the tool's own contract underspecified.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for three parameters including a required enum. It never mentions entity_type, the allowed values, page, limit, or defaults, so an agent gets no help from the description at all on parameters. This is a clear failure to compensate for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The actual purpose appears late in a single sentence: "List published entity profiles in the Beyond Wine knowledge base by type." That is a clear verb+resource, but roughly 90% of the description is catalogue policy and refusal rules, so the core function is buried rather than front-loaded. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_entity or search_beverages beyond the word "list".

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?

There are extensive when-not-to-use rules (no ordering, no catalogue-wide alcohol guarantees, handling excluded categories and price questions), but these are scoping rules for the Beyond Wine domain rather than guidance on when to call list_entities instead of search_beverages, get_entity, or get_graph. The agent is told many things it must not do with the connection, but nothing about when this paginated entity listing is the right tool.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources