get_base_apitools_friendshipsShowSee details https://developer.x.com/en/docs/twitter-api/v1/accounts-and-users/follow-search-get-users/api-reference/get-friendships-show Group: follows. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| proxyUrl | No | ||
| resFormat | No | ||
| source_id | No | ||
| target_id | No | ||
| source_screen_name | No | ||
| target_screen_name | 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds billing cost ('1 Credits') and a group label, but does not disclose read-only behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what kind of relationship data is returned. The external link is not a substitute for inline transparency.
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 contains no redundant wording, so it is concise. However, its main content is a URL pointer rather than a self-contained summary, and the useful metadata (group, billing) is not structured to aid quick tool selection.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a 0% parameter description coverage, the description is not self-sufficient. A moderate-complexity tool with two user identifiers needs to explain input relationships and return semantics; this description leaves the agent almost entirely reliant on external documentation.
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 parameter guidance. With six parameters including source_id, target_id, source_screen_name, and target_screen_name, the agent receives no explanation of how to choose between identifiers or which combinations are valid.
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 actually state what the tool does; it only points to an external documentation URL and lists 'Group: follows.' The URL slug and title hint at friendships, but the description text itself lacks a clear verb+resource statement and does not differentiate it from sibling follow-related 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 like followersList, followingsList, or userTimeline. 'Group: follows' gives weak topical context but does not explain the intended use case or when not to use it.
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.