Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

untappd-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Reject an Untappd friend request

untappd_reject_friend
DestructiveIdempotent

Reject or ignore an incoming Untappd friend request on your own account. Requires user confirmation before action, preventing accidental removal of a pending friend request.

Instructions

Rejects/ignores an incoming friend request (see untappd_pending_friends for pending uids). 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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that the action affects a real relationship, requires user confirmation, has a two-step fallback with confirmToken, and notes the endpoint is not independently verified. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

The description is somewhat dense, especially the confirmation-workflow sentence, but each sentence contributes essential information: action, data source, relationship impact, confirmation behavior, and reliability caveat. Everything earns its place, but the phrasing could be tighter.

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?

For a destructive, confirmation-requiring tool with no output schema, the description covers the full invocation workflow: identifying pending uids, confirming with the user, and handling the two-step token fallback. The endpoint-verification caveat is an appropriate extra. Nothing critical 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% and both parameters have detailed descriptions, providing a solid baseline. The description adds meaningful guidance on where to find the target_uid (via untappd_pending_friends), which is directly relevant to this tool's use case and not fully captured in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Rejects/ignores' and a clear resource 'incoming friend request', making the tool's purpose obvious. It is clearly distinct from accept_friend and remove_friend by the 'incoming' qualifier, though it does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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?

The description points to untappd_pending_friends as the source for pending uids, giving the agent a concrete place to obtain the target_uid. It clearly implies this tool is for rejecting/ignoring incoming requests, though it does not state when to prefer accept_friend or remove_friend.

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