unfollow_user取消关注 PowPow 上的某个人。需要 user_id。本来就没关注也不会报错，返回 removed=false。
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"user_id": "<user_id>"
},
"name": "unfollow_user"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | 要取消关注的用户 id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing idempotency: unfollowing a non-followed user does not error and returns removed=false, which tells an agent the call is safe to retry.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the input requirement, then the edge-case behavior. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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 one-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, required input, and the key edge-case return value. Only minor items such as the success-path return or permission needs are omitted.
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 coverage is 100% for the single user_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description only restates that user_id is required and adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource (取消关注 / unfollow a person on PowPow), so it is clearly distinguishable from follow_user and the other siblings. It does not explicitly name its inverse sibling, but the verb is unambiguous.
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?
It states the required input (needs user_id) and implies the normal usage context, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as follow_user or list_friends. Usage is only implied.
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.