Twitter241 MCP Server

get_user_following_ids

Fetch the IDs of accounts a Twitter user follows by providing their username. Supports paginated results with a custom count up to 5000.

Instructions

GET Following IDs by Username

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "username": "<username>",
      "count": "<count>"
    },
    "name": "get_user_following_ids"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	Yes	Maximum count is 5000
`cursor`	No	Example value:
`username`	Yes	Example value: mrbeast

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and resource, offering no details about pagination, ordering, rate limits, or response structure. The read-only nature is implied by 'GET' but not explicitly confirmed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, tightly worded phrase with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately brief for the simple purpose, though it could include more context without being verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is straightforward but involves pagination (cursor) and a count limit. The description does not explain how to iterate, what the response contains, or any edge cases. With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% because each parameter has a description, though some are minimal (e.g., cursor has only an empty example). The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema handles basic documentation, but no extra clarity is provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'GET Following IDs by Username' clearly states the resource (following IDs) and the key input (username). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_user_followers_ids and get_user_followings, indicating a specific purpose of retrieving only the IDs of accounts a user follows.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it returns only IDs and not full user objects, nor does it reference pagination or count limits beyond the schema. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server