Skip to main content
Glama
untappd-mcp

untappd-mcp

by chrischall

Check if a user has been to a venue (from the cache)

untappd_cache_has_visited
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check if a user has visited one or many venues from cached venue history only—no API call—by matching venue IDs, names, city/state, or coordinates.

Instructions

Answer "has this user been here?" for one or many places in ONE call, from the cached venue history only — NO API call. Each query matches by exact venue_ids, by name (case-insensitive substring or all significant words, optionally narrowed by city/state), and/or by lat/lng within radius_m (default 150 m); venue_ids are unioned with the name/geo match, and name + lat/lng together must both hold. Name/location matching matters because a brewery_id is NOT its taproom's venue_id, a brewery can have several venues, and Untappd keeps "… (duplicate of …)" venues — so expect, and check, several matches. Returns per query: visited, the matched venues (first_visit, recent_visit, total_count, is_duplicate, distance_m, and — once untappd_sync_venue_drinks has fetched them — drinks: the beer from the first/recent visit check-ins — and favorite {is_favorite, sources, reason}: derived from the visit history or added with untappd_favorite_add), and total_visits; plus a freshness block (last_synced_at, coverage_complete, caveat). Run untappd_sync_user_venues first.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queriesYesPlaces to check (1–50); each needs venue_ids, name, or lat+lng
usernameNoUntappd username. Omit to use your own configured account (UNTAPPD_USERNAME).
max_matchesNoMost matched venues listed per query (default 10)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.6.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the exact matching algebra (venue_ids unioned with name/geo, name + lat/lng must both hold), warns that duplicate "(duplicate of …)" venues and multi-venue breweries mean multiple matches should be expected, and describes the freshness block (last_synced_at, coverage_complete, caveat) that signals staleness risk.

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 purpose and the no-API constraint, and every paragraph carries real information. The middle return-value sentence is heavily nested with parentheticals and em-dashes, which makes it dense to parse, but nothing is redundant enough to cut outright.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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 must carry the return contract — and it does, enumerating visited, matched venues with first/recent visit fields, drinks, favorite provenance, total_visits, and the freshness block. For a cached read-only lookup with a 100%-documented schema, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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, but the description adds the combinatorics the schema never states: union between venue_ids and name/geo, conjunction between name and lat/lng, and the 150 m default radius. It does not explain label echoing or max_matches behavior in the prose, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 ("Answer 'has this user been here?'") plus the crucial scope qualifier: one or many places in ONE call, from the cached venue history only, with NO API call. That scope clause alone separates it from live siblings like untappd_user_venues and untappd_venue_info.

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 a concrete prerequisite ("Run untappd_sync_user_venues first") and points at untappd_sync_venue_drinks for drink enrichment and untappd_favorite_add for favorites. It does not explicitly state the exclusion case (e.g. 'if the cache is stale, use the live venue tools instead'), so an agent must infer the fallback, but the context is otherwise clear.

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