Returns a page of the public accounts following a GitHub user. username: GitHub username. Use github_user_following to list who a GitHub user follows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number. | |
| per_page | No | Results per page (max 100). | |
| username | Yes | GitHub username. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by clarifying that results are public accounts and are paginated ('a page'), which tells the agent iteration may be needed.
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 what the tool returns and then the disambiguation cue. No redundant or filler content.
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?
With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety and open-world profile, the description only needs to convey scope and sibling disambiguation, which it does. Minor missing detail on pagination limits is already handled by the schema.
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 coverage is 100% and page/per_page/username are all documented in the schema; the description merely restates username. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.
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: returns the public accounts following a GitHub user. It is immediately distinguishable from github_user_following and other GitHub user siblings, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly names the alternative tool (github_user_following) and contrasts the direction of the relationship, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent faces. It doesn't spell out a 'use this when...' condition, but the contrast is strong enough to route correctly.
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.
