postcopilot_export_followingExport up to 60 accounts that a Threads user follows. Returns usernames, display names, follower counts, and verification status. Provide a profile URL like https://www.threads.com/@username.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The Threads profile URL (e.g. https://www.threads.com/@username) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds a concrete behavioral limit ('up to 60 accounts') plus the returned field set. It stops short of saying what happens for private/protected profiles or how the cap is applied (truncation vs pagination).
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 scope limit and return shape, with no filler. The final sentence duplicates the url description already present in the schema, so it is slightly redundant rather than earning its place.
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 read-only tool, the description covers scope, cap, and returned fields, which is sufficient even without an output schema. It leaves unstated whether the result is paginated beyond 60 entries, which is the only notable gap.
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% and the single 'url' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the schema carries the load. The description restates the same URL example rather than adding format constraints or handling for malformed/non-Threads URLs, which makes this baseline at best.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Export up to 60 accounts that a Threads user follows'), and the phrase 'a Threads user follows' resolves the follower/following ambiguity that separates it from the sibling export_followers. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.
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?
Usage is implied by the directionality wording ('accounts that a user follows'), which tells an agent this is the following-list tool rather than the follower-list tool. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no prerequisites or failure conditions called out.
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.