twitter-x-aio

User Followers by userId

get_user_userId_followers

Receive all followers of a user. You can use the cursor and count to navigate around. Group: User. Billing per call: 1 Credits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	The default count is 20. You can specify a custom one here.
`cursor`	No	At the end of the entries array you'll find two objects with the type TimelineTimelineCursor. There is one cursor to go up (Top) and one for going down (bottom) the list.
`userId`	Yes
`username`	No	If you provide a username value it will automatically be picked and the userId is ignored

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses pagination behavior ('use the cursor and count to navigate around') and includes billing/group metadata, but does not mention response shape, authentication needs, or any side effects. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.

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?

The description is very concise: a clear one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence navigation note, and two brief metadata labels. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple 4-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, pagination, and metadata. However, with no output schema, it does not explain the shape of follower objects or what exactly is returned beyond 'followers.' The schema provides some cursor-structure details, but overall the description is not fully complete.

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 description coverage is high (75%), with cursor and count already documented well. The main description adds only a high-level note that cursor/count are for navigation, which does not materially exceed the schema. Username's override behavior and userId's role are already in the input schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Receive all followers of a user.' This is a specific verb and resource, and the tool name/title reinforce the scope. It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like get_user_userId_followings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: use it to get all followers of a user, with cursor and count for pagination. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the stated purpose is sufficient to infer when the tool should be used.

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

All twitter-x-aio tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target distinct data types, but there is notable overlap: get_search_searchTerm vs post_search_searchTerm and get_tweet_tweetId vs post_tweet_tweetId are functional duplicates, and the three followings variants (get_user_userId_followings, _basic, _ids) have unclear boundaries. This creates ambiguity for an agent trying to select the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix HTTP method prefixes (get_, post_) with resource_parameter structures, and camelCase is embedded in parameters (searchTerm, tweetId, tweetsAndReplies). The pattern is not uniform (e.g., get_user_by_username_username vs get_user_usernames_to_ids), making the naming feel ad hoc and hard to predict.

Tool Count3/5

With 23 tools, the set is on the heavier side. Many tools are redundant (GET/POST duplicates) or overly granular (three followings endpoints), padding the count without adding distinct capabilities. A leaner set of 15-18 tools would be more appropriate for the read-only Twitter data scope.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core read-only Twitter data surface well: user info, tweets, media, followers/followings, likes, search, trends, and miscellaneous utilities. The only notable gap is the lack of a direct endpoint for listing a user's followers' details (though that could be composed), and no ability to post or interact, which aligns with the apparent purpose.

Resources

Need Help?