get_base_apitools_unfollowSee details https://developer.x.com/en/docs/twitter-api/v1/accounts-and-users/follow-search-get-users/api-reference/post-friendships-destroy 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 and no description of side effects (e.g., unfollowing a user), required permissions, or potential impacts. The description is a placeholder.
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 extremely short, but it is not a well-structured, informative summary; it reads as a placeholder with a link and metadata. No wasted words, but also no useful content.
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 no output schema or annotations, the description should be self-contained. It is completely inadequate, providing only a URL, group, and billing, with no explanation of the tool's function or parameters.
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?
All six parameters (ct0, userId, proxyUrl, resFormat, auth_token, screenName) lack descriptions. The schema provides no details, and the description does not clarify their roles.
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?
Description only provides a URL, group, and billing info; it does not state that the tool unfollows a user. The name suggests it, but the description fails to communicate the action.
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 on when to use this tool versus other follow/unlike tools. The description gives no context for selection.
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.