Mary told Jesus this because she expected that He would do something about it. The context makes this clear. But as so often happens in Jeopardy!, she failed to phrase her request for a favor in the form of a question. Certainly Jesus understood her remark as a request for a favor.
And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine.
And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.
His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.
Yeah; like, "Let's go home now."
The FACTS are what is PRINTED; not ASSUMED by Rome!
No, the context does not show that Mary herself expected Jesus to DO anything about it when she remarked
as if that was Mary's own prime motivation for having made the observation, unless you are trying to say there was something along lines of stereotypical Jewish mother, guilt-tripping hidden requirement, inherent within the words Mary is attributed to having spoke, instead of those initial words, at face value be simple observation; "they have no wine".
But go ahead, try to explain how Mary's initial comment carried all which her later comment ("do all which he says") may have, or should we say ----likely did.
Can't do it if relying upon Scripture itself, can you?
No, that's where the rest is left to be read-in-between the lines, which can be done in some instances of Scripture, for that is among the ways which other Scripture writers have been led to communicate the things of God, but in others instances (if one makes it a habit to always be trying to read-in-between the lines what they would like to find) can be pure (and misleading) imposition upon Scripture itself that which some may prefer to be read into the texts.
In this instance, it's as if what could be well enough understood was likely to have been among Mary's own sense of events which ARE evidenced right AFTER Jesus responded to her --- is being fully transported to apply to her own, initial opening comment of observation.
One way of approaching biblical texts (exegesis) derives meanings from, extracts from Scripture that which can be openly enough found within Scripture, the other way (eisogesis) inserts meanings, imposes upon the texts that which is not actually there, or well supported from elsewhere with OT & NT texts, or even earliest decades Christian church "tradition", as those be known.
But thanks for providing yet more example for just how slippery things can be between well enough founded exegesis, and flat-out, slight, subtle, and depending upon theological application significant departure from Scripture through eisogesis, and how those two differing approaches produce results which are then set right next to one another, even blended together as if they were one and the same.
After Jesus replied to her, then, at that point it does seem as if she had some sense that there was going to something which her own son --- whom she knew well enough who's father he truly was --- would do something significant.
Before then, when she simply remarked "they have no wine", there is nothing of the sort.
It's much more likely that Mary's own internal thinking, when she remarked, "they have no wine" would have been in context of Jewish cultural/religious sensibilities of that era, as in the wedding party running out of wine be a "bad omen" sort of harbinger for the marriage which they were gathered together to attend celebration of, rather than her initial observation carrying along with it something like "hey son, I know you can do miracles, how about one now?" sort of thing, regardless if Jesus could be imagined to have responded as He did, as IF his earthly mother had been deliberately & intentionally goading Him into "doing something", as if Mary EXPECTED Jesus to do a miracle.
So once again, you sir, are wrong.
Context does not show that "Mary told Jesus this (they have no wine) because she expected that He would do something about it.