Follow a city so the member is notified of new events there (e.g. "Plano, TX"). member_email
must be the authenticated member's email. Returns {'ok'} or {'ok': False, 'error'}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | ||
| member_email | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return format, but does not mention any side effects, permissions required, or whether the action is idempotent. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, and includes all essential information without excess.
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 low complexity (2 required params, simple return), the description covers purpose, key parameter constraints, and return format. It could mention whether following a city already followed is handled gracefully, but overall it is nearly complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an example for 'city' ('Plano, TX') and clarifies that 'member_email' must be the authenticated member's email. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema.
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 the verb 'Follow', the resource 'city', and the purpose 'so the member is notified of new events there'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'save_place' or 'list_follows' by specifying the action on a city.
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 precondition: 'member_email must be the authenticated member's email.' It does not explicitly list alternatives, but the purpose is straightforward and no sibling tool directly overlaps.
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.
