get_base_apitools_followSee details https://developer.x.com/en/docs/twitter-api/v1/accounts-and-users/follow-search-get-users/api-reference/post-friendships-create Group: follows. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ct0 | No | ||
| userId | No | ||
| proxyUrl | No | ||
| resFormat | No | ||
| auth_token | No | ||
| screenName | No |
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the billing cost and links to external docs. It does not disclose that this is a mutating operation (following), any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits.
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 concise in a useful sense. It wastes space on a URL and billing without conveying core purpose. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
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 6 undocumented parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a complex domain (Twitter API), the description is completely inadequate. It provides essentially no actionable information.
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 0% and the description provides no explanation of any of the 6 parameters. The parameters (ct0, userId, proxyUrl, etc.) are entirely undefined, so an agent would have no clue how to populate them.
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 does not explicitly state what the tool does. It only provides an external URL and billing information. The title 'to follow' is vague, and while the URL hints at creating a friendship (following), the description itself lacks a clear verb-resource statement. It does not distinguish from the many sibling tools.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to other follow/unfollow tools. The description is purely a URL reference and billing note.
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.