untappd-mcp-server

get_user_friends

Fetch the public friend list of any Untappd user. Requires username; supports pagination and result limits.

Instructions

Retrieve a user's friend list (public accounts only)

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": {
      "username": "<username>"
    },
    "name": "get_user_friends"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Results per page (max 50, default 25)
`offset`	No	Pagination offset
`username`	Yes	Untappd username

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description has full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'retrieve', implying read-only, but provides no details on authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or what happens if the user is private. This is insufficient for a tool with no other safety metadata.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence with no filler words. Front-loads the core purpose and constraint. Highly efficient.

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?

For a straightforward list tool, the description covers basic functionality. However, it omits mention of pagination behavior (even though parameters are in schema) and does not clarify that the list is from the perspective of the authenticated user. With no output schema, a brief note on return format would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the action (retrieve), resource (user's friend list), and a key constraint (public accounts only). It distinguishes from siblings like get_user_info or get_user_badges by specifying the exact data returned.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list exists but the description does not mention contexts where this tool is preferred, nor does it give any when-not-to-use advice.

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