NEVINI Wines

Get wine details

get_wine

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns one wine by slug, numeric id, name or wine URL: description, grapes, taste notes, serving temperature, rating, every bottle size with its variant_id, live price and availability, and related wines. taste lists every taste note; food_pairing is the pairing sentence quoted from the description, or null when it names no dish. default_variant_id is the standard bottle of the wine (0.75 L for most wines) and is null unless that bottle is purchasable; default_size is its size. Sizes marked on_request cannot be ordered online. Use search_wines first when the user describes a wine rather than naming it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "wine": "<wine>"
    },
    "name": "get_wine"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`wine`	Yes	Wine slug (e.g. "guerriero-della-terra"), numeric id, wine name or nevini.wine wine URL.
`language`	No	Response language: "nl" (Dutch, default) or "en" (English).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`wine`	Yes
`notes`	No
`commerce`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real business semantics beyond them — that default_variant_id is null unless that bottle is purchasable, and that sizes marked on_request cannot be ordered online — which an agent could not infer from the annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and payload, then moves to field semantics and finally the sibling routing rule. Dense but every sentence carries information; the field-by-field hedging (taste, food_pairing, default_variant_id, default_size) is slightly long-winded for a schema-backed return type.

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% param coverage, the description only needs to resolve ambiguities the structure cannot, and it does so for the null cases and on_request sizes. It omits nothing that would block a correct call.

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 100% and already enumerates accepted identifier forms plus the language enum, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the identifier options ("slug, numeric id, name or wine URL") without adding format or precedence guidance for the wine parameter.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Returns one wine by slug, numeric id, name or wine URL") and enumerates exactly what comes back. That wording makes it immediately distinguishable from search_wines, which the description then names explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit routing rule: "Use search_wines first when the user describes a wine rather than naming it." That covers the main selection decision against the primary sibling, though it says nothing about what to do when the input is ambiguous or matches multiple wines.

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

All NEVINI Wines tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?