Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

untappd-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Send an Untappd friend request

untappd_add_friend
DestructiveIdempotent

Send a friend request to another Untappd user by their UID, and confirm first so the request is only delivered after your approval.

Instructions

Sends a friend request to another user, who will be notified. Acts on YOUR account and affects a real relationship with another person. 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). Note: this endpoint path is taken from the Untappd app but is not otherwise independently verified.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
target_uidYesThe target user id (uid) — from a user profile (response.user.uid) or a friends-list item
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. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses that the action 'affects a real relationship with another person,' describes the two-step confirmation flow with confirmToken, and honestly notes that the endpoint path is not independently verified. This is substantial behavioral context that helps the agent anticipate side effects and safety requirements.

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 core action, the real-world impact and confirmation flow, and the verification caveat. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: confirmation behavior, response preview/confirmToken, and safety caveat. It could further explain what the preview contains or common error conditions, but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for both target_uid and confirmToken. The description adds value by explaining the two-step confirmation flow and when the confirmToken is relevant, reinforcing the parameter semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Sends a friend request to another user'), identifies the resource ('another user'), and notes the consequence ('who will be notified'). It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like accept_friend, reject_friend, and remove_friend, which handle different relationship actions.

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 implies when to use this tool (to initiate a friend request) and gives important context about confirmation behavior, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for accepting/rejecting pending requests). The usage is clear from the verb and resource, but exclusion guidance is absent.

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