beyond-wine

Search beverages

search_beverages

Read-only

Beyond Wine is a published reference for no/low ABV specialty beverages in fine dining: wine alternatives, craft ferments, kombucha, teas and 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 purchasing request without a lookup. 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. Find a beverage by name or alias. Start here for drink names, not search_producers. q matches a beverage name, alias OR producer name; a combined producer-plus-product phrase may not match. If empty, try a distinctive product word or search the producer separately and inspect its lineup. Use producer with an exact producer slug to list its drinks. Verify the returned beverage name and producer, copy its exact slug into get_beverage, then get_claim for source provenance. Do not infer nonexistence from an empty search or silently substitute another product. 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 retrieve its source evidence with get_claim before presenting it as meeting the user's alcohol requirement. 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

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	No
`page`	No
`limit`	No
`category`	No
`producer`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedJul 4, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / producer
```
Added value: +{
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
First observedMay 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint=false, yet the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: it cannot place orders or take payments, an empty result does not establish nonexistence, abv values are unqualified catalogue numbers and null means unknown, and declared alcohol wording must be preserved and verified via claim evidence. These are exactly the operational caveats an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The content is valuable but poorly front-loaded: the actual action ('Find a beverage by name or alias') arrives after a long scope preamble, and the refusal rules are interleaved with search mechanics. There is clear redundancy, e.g. two separate sentences warning against inferring alcohol from ingredients/production methods, so not every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a catalogue tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers the critical domain semantics, the verification workflow (name/producer check, slug into get_beverage, then get_claim), and the refusals thoroughly. The remaining gap is pagination/limit/category behavior, which is minor relative to what is covered.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It meaningfully explains q (matches name, alias OR producer name; combined producer-plus-product phrases may fail; fallback to a distinctive word) and producer (exact slug to list a lineup), but says nothing about category, page, or limit, leaving three of five parameters undocumented.

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 ('Find a beverage by name or alias') and scopes it precisely to the Beyond Wine no/low-ABV catalogue, listing included and excluded categories. It explicitly differentiates itself from a sibling ('Start here for drink names, not search_producers'), so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (drink names, producer slug lineups), when-not-to-use (excluded categories, purchasing requests, catalogue-wide zero-alcohol guarantees), and the correct alternative behaviors for each refusal. It also names the follow-on tools (get_beverage, get_claim) and the fallback path when a query returns empty.

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

All beyond-wine tools Inspect

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

Need Help?