Skip to main content
Glama

DC Member API

by io.github.dynamitecircle

follows_profiles_by_id_create

POST /follows/profiles/:userID — Follow a DCer

Follow a DCer. Idempotent — calling it twice with the same userID is safe (no-op the second time). Target must exist and be publicly visible (hidden + guest profiles are refused with 404). You cannot follow yourself.

When the cap of 150 is reached, returns 409 follow_limit_reached with a hint to unfollow someone first. The response includes the new profile mini-card and updated count so the caller can render the change without re-fetching.

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.

⚠️ WRITE operation: this mutates your DC account data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userIDYesuserID of the DCer to follow. Discover via `GET /profile-match` or `GET /chapters/:cityID` members lists.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, description fully discloses write mutation, idempotency, target requirements, cap behavior (409 response), and response structure. Warns about WRITE operation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Well-structured and front-loaded, but includes tangential locator/digest note. Could be slightly more concise without losing essential info.

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?

For a single-param tool with no output schema, description covers response (mini-card, count) and all failure modes, making it complete for agent decision-making.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and description adds value by explaining how to obtain userID (discovery via GET endpoints) and clarifying it refers to a DCer.

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?

Clearly states 'Follow a DCer' with HTTP method and endpoint. Distinguishes from sibling tools like follows_chapter_create by specifying resource type (profile vs chapter). Covers idempotency and constraints.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides explicit failure conditions (target must exist, publicly visible, no self-follow, cap of 150) and idempotency. Does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but context is sufficient.

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