user_followings_countReturn the total number of accounts a Roblox user is following, by numeric user_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of users being followed |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "user_id": 1
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Following count response",
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Number of users being followed",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only that it returns a count by numeric user_id, which is already in the schema, but does not disclose error behavior or edge cases (e.g., invalid user_id).
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource, zero 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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema present), the description is mostly complete. It could briefly mention edge cases or the nature of the count (e.g., live value), but it is sufficient for a straightforward query.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only restates the type ('numeric') of user_id, adding no additional context about constraints, range, or expected format beyond the schema's examples.
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 accounts a Roblox user is following, using a numeric user_id. The verb 'return' and resource 'followings count' are specific, and it naturally distinguishes from the sibling 'user_followers_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 like 'user_followers_count'. The description focuses solely on what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without direct comparisons or exclusion criteria.
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.