my_following列出当前账号在 PowPow 关注的人（按关注时间倒序，含昵称、用户名、简介、主页链接）。注意 PowPow 的「好友」不是单独的关系，而是互相关注的结果；问「我的好友」应调用 list_friends。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "my_following"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 返回条数，默认 20 | |
| offset | No | 翻页偏移，默认 0 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this a safe read-only, closed-world operation, so the description only needs to add context — and it does, by stating the audience (current account), the ordering, and what fields come back. It stops short of explaining paging behavior or whether the page indicates more results exist, which is the main remaining gap for a list operation with no output schema.
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?
Two sentences, zero padding, with the positive definition first and the disambiguation second. Each clause carries decision-relevant information.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return content and ordering, and it resolves the one real ambiguity (friends vs. following). It does not say how to detect whether more pages remain, which matters given offset-based paging with a cap of 50.
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 limit and offset are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema lacks by promising stable reverse-chronological ordering, which is what makes offset paging safe for an agent to use.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('列出当前账号在 PowPow 关注的人') and adds scope details — reverse follow-time ordering and returned fields. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_friends, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.
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?
Gives an explicit routing rule: questions about '我的好友' must go to list_friends because friends are derived from mutual follows. That is a concrete when-to-use-this-instead statement rather than implied context.
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.