get_v2_profile_followersv2 / Profile Followers Group: v2 / Profile. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Result limit | |
| cursor | No | You can get subsequent results by entering the `cursor` value taken from the first response. | |
| user_id | No | User ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether it is a read-only operation. The only extra info is billing cost, which is not behavioral transparency.
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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise, but it is under-specified. It repeats the title and adds a billing note, which is not useful for tool selection. It is not front-loaded with functional information.
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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how pagination works (though cursor is mentioned in schema), or any prerequisites. The billing note is irrelevant to functionality.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 is essentially a title and billing note, not a functional description. It says 'v2 / Profile Followers' which indicates the resource (profile followers) but lacks a verb like 'get' or 'list'. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_v2_profile_following or get_v2_profile_feed, though the name itself is somewhat clear.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions billing per call, which is not usage guidance. Sibling tools exist for similar profile-related operations, but no differentiation is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.