Skip to main content
Glama

DC Member API

by io.github.dynamitecircle

follows_profiles

GET /follows/profiles — List followed DCers

List the DCers you are currently following. Returns the same mini-profile shape used by every other list endpoint, so each entry roundtrips cleanly with GET /profile/:userID or POST /follows/profiles/:userID. Cap: 150 follows; the response cap echoes that so a client can warn the user as they approach the limit.

This list also drives the /locator/digest favoritePeople and favoriteCities sections — surface trip + event activity from DCers and cities you care about without scrolling everywhere.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description discloses the read-only nature (GET), a cap of 150 follows, and the response structure including a 'cap' field. It also explains how the output relates to other endpoints, giving good transparency for a simple read operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, with three sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy or unnecessary length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers the return shape (mini-profile), the cap, and integration with other endpoints. It also explains the utility in locator digest, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is empty, so schema coverage is 100%. While the description does not add parameter information (none exist), it adds value by explaining what the tool returns and its context, exceeding the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'List the DCers you are currently following,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'follows_chapters' and 'follows_profiles_by_id_create' by focusing on listing followed profiles.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides context on how the output integrates with other endpoints (e.g., 'roundtrips cleanly with GET /profile/:userID') and mentions the cap and its use in locator digest. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives 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.

All DC Member API toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Despite the large number of tools, each has a detailed description that clearly distinguishes its purpose. Minor potential overlaps (e.g., search vs. resource-specific search, own vs. other's agenda) are well documented, so an agent can differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun or resource_subresource_action pattern in snake_case. A few tools are just nouns (e.g., 'alerts', 'announcements'), but these are top-level listing endpoints; overall the naming is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

85 tools is very high for a single server, making it difficult for an agent to efficiently explore and select the right tool. While each tool seems justified for the broad domain, the count feels overwhelming and could be streamlined.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers most major areas (events, trips, chapters, rooms, search, profile, etc.) with CRUD or lifecycle operations. However, the lack of a 'send message' tool for rooms is a notable gap, and some resources (e.g., events) are read-only on creation/update, limiting agent workflows.

Resources