user_followers_countReturn the total number of followers for a Roblox user by numeric user_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of followers |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "user_id": 1
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Follower count response",
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Number of followers",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what is already in annotations, so it provides minimal value.
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?
The description is a single focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
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 simple read-only tool with a single parameter and output schema, the description covers the core function. However, it lacks explanation of the user_id parameter and does not mention the return value format, making it just adequate.
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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description only says 'numeric user_id', which repeats the schema's type (number) without adding semantics like expected format, range, or examples. It fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 clearly states it returns the total number of followers for a Roblox user using a numeric user_id. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('total number of followers'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'user_followings_count' which would return followings count.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The usage is implied: when you need the follower count for a user. However, it does not mention exclusions 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, especially within the Roblox and Pipeworx domains. However, the three variants of ask_pipeworx (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) are very similar and could cause confusion, as could deep_research vs ask_pipeworx.
Naming conventions are mixed: snake_case (user_followers_count), verb_noun with underscores (ask_pipeworx), and camelCase (recall, forget). Roblox tools follow a consistent 'user_' prefix, but Pipeworx tools lack a uniform pattern.
41 tools is excessive for a server named 'Roblox'. The majority of tools are Pipeworx data utilities, which are unrelated to the server's apparent focus. This overloading undermines coherence.
Coverage within the Roblox domain is basic (user profiles, friends, games) but misses common features like asset details or group management. Pipeworx appears comprehensive for data lookups, but the overall set lacks unified domain completeness.