Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UnClick MCP Server

UnClick MCP Server

by malamutemayhem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

untappd_search_beer

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Untappd for beers by query and return matching results, with optional result limits and API key input for agent workflows.

Instructions

Search for beers on Untappd.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "untappd_search_beer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes
api_keyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of the api_key requirement, rate limits, result caps via 'limit', or whether results are paginated — all relevant for a live third-party search.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the key concept front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with an undocumented api_key parameter, an unexplained limit, and no output schema, the description is far too thin — an agent cannot tell whether api_key is required per-call or configured, nor what a result record contains (beer ID, brewery, style) to chain into untappd_get_beer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it explains none of the three parameters. 'query' is only weakly implied by 'Search', while 'limit' (result count) and 'api_key' (auth credential) are entirely undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('beers') scoped to Untappd, which distinguishes it from untappd_get_beer (single-beer lookup) and untappd_search_brewery by implication. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus untappd_get_beer or untappd_beer_activities, no mention of prerequisites, and no note that search returns candidate beers whose IDs feed the get_beer tool. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the name.

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