get_base_apitools_followersIdsSee details https://developer.x.com/en/docs/twitter-api/v1/accounts-and-users/follow-search-get-users/api-reference/get-followers-ids Group: follows. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | ||
| userId | No | ||
| proxyUrl | No | ||
| resFormat | No | ||
| screenName | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it discloses no behavior: no mention of read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, data returned, or side effects. The billing note is the only behavioral hint, and it's not about functionality.
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 and free of fluff, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It does not front-load the tool's purpose and delivers only a link and metadata, which is not effective structure for an AI agent.
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 5 unrequired parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a complex domain (Twitter API), the description is entirely inadequate. It provides no context about the tool's function, output format, or parameters, making it impossible for an agent to use correctly without external lookup.
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 information about any of the 5 parameters (cursor, userId, proxyUrl, resFormat, screenName). The agent receives no added meaning beyond the parameter names in the schema, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of explanations.
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 a URL for details, a group label ('follows'), and billing info. The tool name and title are self-explanatory, but the description adds no clear purpose statement beyond that, making it weakly differentiated from similar siblings like get_base_apitools_followersList or get_base_apitools_followingsIds.
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 preferred scenarios. The description offers only a URL and billing, leaving the agent without context for selection among many related x.com tools.
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.