Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

untappd-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Remove an Untappd friend

untappd_remove_friend
DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a friend or cancel an outgoing friend request on Untappd, with a confirmation step to prevent accidental removals.

Instructions

Removes an existing friend, or cancels a friend request you sent. 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?

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses that it affects a real relationship, requires user confirmation (with a two-step token fallback), and notes that the endpoint path is not independently verified. This adds significant behavioral context not captured by the annotations.

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 a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then details the confirmation flow and caveat. It is not overly verbose, though it could be split into shorter sentences for easier scanning. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature and the lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers the action, the confirmation mechanism, and the verification caveat. It does not describe the success/error response format, but that is not required when no output schema is present and the core flow is clearly explained.

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 both parameters are already well documented. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides; the confirmToken explanation is already thorough in the schema. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Removes') and resource ('an existing friend, or cancels a friend request'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_friend, accept_friend, and reject_friend. It states exactly what action occurs and on whose account.

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 conveys when to use the tool: to remove an existing friend or cancel an outgoing request, which differentiates it from accept/reject (for incoming requests). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough. The confirmation flow is also outlined, but no explicit 'when not to use' is given.

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