untappd_trendingRetrieve current trending beers on Untappd, with separate macro and micro lists for broad and craft options. Read-only and requires no input.
Get the beers trending on Untappd right now, split into macro (big/widely-available) and micro (craft/independent) lists. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' is somewhat redundant. However, it adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema by specifying the output is split into macro and micro lists and that results reflect the current moment. It does not disclose pagination or data freshness details, but for a no-parameter read-only tool this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two terse sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the macro/micro clarification earns its place by telling the agent what to expect in the response.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there are no inputs, annotations cover safety, and the description conveys the temporal scope and result categorization, nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No output schema exists, but the macro/micro split is sufficient context for a simple trending query.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and instead explains the output shape, which is the only meaningful semantic information needed here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('beers trending on Untappd right now'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on trending status plus the macro/micro split. It is immediately obvious what this tool does and how it differs from search or beer-info tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'trending on Untappd right now' gives clear context for when to invoke this tool: when current trending beer data is desired. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the temporal and popularity framing makes the intended use case reasonably unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.