twitter-x-aio

User Followings by userId

get_user_userId_followings

Receive all followings 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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does explain cursor/count navigation and mentions the TimelineTimelineCursor objects, which is useful. However, it omits auth requirements, potential side effects, and any specifics about the response structure. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is concise, with the core purpose stated first ('Receive all followings of a user') and navigation hints following. There is no fluff, but it could arguably be more informative without losing conciseness. It earns a high score for efficiency.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and the existence of sibling tools that differ (basic vs ids), this description is incomplete. It does not explain what distinguishes this variant, what the response looks like, or any access requirements. The pagination hint is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 coverage is 75% (count, cursor, username are documented), and the description adds a sentence about using cursor and count for navigation, which reinforces their combined use. The username override is only in the schema, not mentioned in the description. Overall, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Receive all followings of a user', which is a clear verb+resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_user_userId_followings_basic or get_user_userId_followings_ids, though the name itself implies a full followings list. This is clear but not fully distinguishing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like followings_basic or followings_ids. The only usage hint is about pagination with cursor and count, but there is no mention of selection criteria or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool choice.

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?