Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

untappd-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Comment on an Untappd check-in

untappd_add_comment

Post a comment on your own Untappd check-in, visible to others, with user confirmation before publishing.

Instructions

Post a comment on a check-in from YOUR account. Writes to your Untappd account and is visible to others. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commentYesComment text to post
checkin_idYesUntappd check-in id
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.2.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv0.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the raw annotations: it discloses that the write is externally visible ('visible to others'), which sharpens the readOnlyHint=false signal, and it fully documents the confirmation protocol — client-supported prompt versus the fallback where the first call returns a preview and confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds. The token lifecycle rules ('only a repeat call with that token proceeds') are genuinely useful and go well beyond the boolean annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, each earning its place: the verb+resource action, the side-effect visibility warning, and the confirmation protocol. The action is front-loaded, the confirmation complexity is compressed into one well-structured sentence, and there is zero filler or redundancy.

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 write tool with a confirmation flow and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral surface: side effects, visibility, confirmation requirement, and the two-step fallback. The only notable gap is the lack of any return-format description for the standard elicitation-supported path — the agent knows about the preview/confirmToken response but not what a success response looks like. This is a minor omission given the strong overall coverage.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including an unusually detailed description for confirmToken. The tool description adds the confirming-flow context around confirmToken but does not introduce per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema's own descriptions provide. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Post a comment on a check-in from YOUR account.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like untappd_delete_comment (inverse operation), untappd_checkin (creating a check-in), and untappd_toast (a different interaction) by pinpointing the exact action and account scope.

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 states the account scope ('from YOUR account') and explains the confirmation flow as part of usage, which gives clear procedural context. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions — an agent facing siblings like untappd_toast or untappd_delete_comment gets no routing help. Usage is implied by purpose rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools