twitter_verified_followersGet only the verified (blue checkmark) followers of a Twitter/X user, by username. Returns profile details for each. Use twitter_user_followers for all followers. Billed $0.006 per page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pages | No | Number of pages to fetch, 1-20 (default: 1) | |
| username | Yes | Twitter username (without @, max 50 characters) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / pages / descriptionPrevious value: -"Number of pages to fetch, 1-10 (default: 1)"New value: +"Number of pages to fetch, 1-20 (default: 1)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. Description adds billing cost ($0.006 per page) and return content ('profile details for each'), but does not cover rate limits or authentication needs.
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?
Four short, front-loaded sentences: purpose, return, alternative, billing. Every sentence earns its place and no information is buried.
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?
Simple read tool with annotations and full schema coverage; description covers purpose, alternative, return type, and billing. With no output schema, 'profile details' is minimal but adequate for an agent to call correctly.
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%, so username and pages are fully documented in the schema. Description adds 'by username' but no additional syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Explicit verb 'Get' with resource 'verified followers' of a Twitter/X user and scope 'only verified', plus input method 'by username'. Names sibling twitter_user_followers as the alternative for all followers, distinguishing it from alternatives clearly.
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?
States when to use this tool (verified-only followers) and explicitly directs to twitter_user_followers for all followers. Also notes billing cost, giving cost context for usage decisions.
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.