Follow or unfollow a user. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | No | 'follow' or 'unfollow' | follow |
| username | Yes | Username of the user to follow or unfollow |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / action / enumAdded value: +[
+ "follow",
+ "unfollow"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral info ('Requires authentication'), but does not clarify side effects of repeated follow/unfollow calls, error cases (e.g., unfollowing a non-followed user), or permission requirements beyond authentication.
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?
The description is very short with two sentences. While concise, it could be improved by merging the purpose and requirement into one sentence. It is not wasteful but lacks structure.
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 the low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and auth requirement. However, it omits potential error conditions, idempotency behavior (despite the annotation), and what the user can expect on success or failure.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already documents both parameters clearly. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action (follow or unfollow) and the resource (user). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like colony_block_user or colony_ban_user. However, it lacks additional context about what following means in the platform.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like colony_block_user or colony_follow_tag. The description only implies basic usage and does not provide when-not-to-use or prerequisites beyond authentication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.