get_v2_FollowingUser Following Group: User. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Use the User By Screen Name endpoint to find the ID from a username. | |
| count | No | Number of results | |
| cursor | No | Cursor for other results |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. The description only states billing cost and a cryptic 'User Following Group: User', offering no insight into authentication, rate limits, output structure, or side effects. It does not even clearly state that it retrieves data.
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 short but not effectively concise—it omits essential purpose and usage details. The phrase 'User Following Group: User' is vague and adds little. The billing line is minor context better suited elsewhere. The description is under-specified rather than streamlined.
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?
Without annotations or an output schema, the description needs to compensate by explaining parameters and behavior. It fails to clarify what the tool returns, how to authenticate, or even confirm this is a read operation. For a tool with three parameters and sibling confusion, this is insufficient.
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%, with each parameter (id, count, cursor) having a description. While the description text adds no further parameter semantics, the baseline for complete schema coverage is met. The description does not compensate for any gaps, but per rubric, a 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 'User Following Group: User' is a tautology and does not specify an action or resource. It fails to convey that this endpoint likely returns the list of users a user is following, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like get_v2_Followers. The name implies it but the description adds no clarity.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparison with siblings. The only additional info is billing, which is not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools appear to do the same thing, such as get_v1_1_Followers vs get_v2_Followers and get_v2_Tweet vs get_v2_TweetDetail. The descriptions are too brief to clarify differences, and multiple user lookup tools (get_v1_1_Users, get_v2_UserByRestId, etc.) create confusion.
Naming is inconsistent, mixing camelCase (get_ShortUrl), snake_case (get_email_search_by_username), and version prefixes with varying formats (get_v1_1 vs get_v2). No uniform verb_noun pattern is followed.
With 32 tools, the server is overloaded, especially given many redundant variations across API versions. The count exceeds the 25-tool threshold for too many tools, and many could be consolidated.
The server is entirely read-only (all tools are GET), missing write operations like posting tweets, following users, or sending direct messages. This is a significant gap for a Twitter server, and even read coverage has redundancies rather than comprehensive distinct endpoints.