DELETE /follows/profiles/:userID — Unfollow a DCer
Unfollow a DCer. Idempotent — unfollowing someone you weren't following is a no-op (still returns 200 with the updated count). Use it whenever you want to stop seeing a DCer in your /locator/digest favoritePeople section.
⚠️ WRITE operation: this mutates your DC account data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userID | Yes | userID of the DCer to unfollow. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses it is a WRITE operation, idempotent, and returns updated count. No annotations provided, so the description fully covers behavioral traits.
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?
Very concise: two sentences and a warning. Front-loaded with HTTP method and purpose. No wasted words.
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?
Given no output schema, the description explains the return (updated count) and idempotency. Adequate for a simple delete, but could mention response format.
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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's description of userID.
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 explicitly states 'Unfollow a DCer' and differentiates from sibling tools like follows_profiles_by_id_create and follows_chapter_delete. It uses a specific verb and resource.
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?
The description provides a clear use case: 'whenever you want to stop seeing a DCer in your /locator/digest favoritePeople section.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
