untappd-mcp-server

get_brewery_info

Retrieve detailed brewery info and recent check-ins from Untappd by supplying the brewery ID.

Instructions

Retrieve detailed information and recent check-ins for a specific brewery

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "brewery_id": "<brewery_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_brewery_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`compact`	No	If true, returns brewery info only. Default: false
`brewery_id`	Yes	Untappd brewery ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states high-level purpose but omits details like authentication requirements, rate limits, the scope of 'recent' check-ins, or that this is a read-only operation. Minimal transparency beyond basic function.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core function. However, it could be slightly restructured to include key behavioral notes without adding length.

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

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description mentions 'detailed information and recent check-ins' but lacks specifics about what fields are included or any details on pagination or size limits. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, more completeness would help the agent anticipate the return format.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'brewery_id' and 'compact'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does not elaborate on the behavior or expected values of the parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('detailed information and recent check-ins for a specific brewery'), effectively conveying the tool's primary function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_brewery_checkins' which might be a more specific alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as when to use 'get_brewery_info' over 'get_brewery_checkins' (which only returns check-ins) or when the compact parameter is beneficial. Missing explicit alternatives and context for parameter usage.

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